Who are you thinking of voting for in 2008?

[Kyle]

We are only the world's biggest polluter because our GDP dwarfs other countries. If divided up by GDP, we are one of the cleanest. All the regulations will do is push companies to relocate to countries with even lower standards than we have now. See what Europe is currently going through as a fine example.

But if divided by population we are by far the dirtiest. Europe's problems have more to do with their labor laws than their environmental laws. The race to the bottom scenario you propose has some merit, but is not all it is cracked up to be. Companies are not quite that mobile because of the capital investments they have already made here. Additionally, there are major benefits to being located here, such as ease of distribution, the ability to more quickly react to market fluctuations, and an educated workforce.

Additionally, nothing said so far tends to rebut my general argument that we need to take the lead on environmental issues if we hope to be able to influence other countries to make changes. China's economy has been growing at a double digit pace and they are set to far surpass us in coal burning. They aren't using much in the way of "clean coal" technology either.

 

[Kyle]

If I remember correctly, the lawyers fees in the Iowa/Microsoft were $79.5 million with a settlement of $179.9 million or about 44%. $79.5 million in legal "fees"...uh huh. :rolleyes5cz:

She did make quite a bit on that, but to be fair, that was the only case she worked on for about 5 years. They needed a warehouse to store the documents. That doesn't all go to one person either. There is also 5 years of work there from a rather large support staff.

 

[bawbie]

I absolutely do not agree with other countries buying up our debt. If we cut out all the liberal give away programs, we wouldn't need to borrow money to have a strong military,now would we?:frown3qg:

The Republicans (supposedly "conservative") were in charge of the House, the Senate and White House for 6 years and the amount of non-military spending ballooned.

The "liberal give away programs" (by which I assume you mean welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc) are not the problem. The problem is that Republicans want to give away money with no strings attached and no oversight. They just want the money to go into the pockets of their rich buddies (Halliburton, etc).

 

[jdoggivjc]

The Republicans (supposedly "conservative") were in charge of the House, the Senate and White House for 6 years and the amount of non-military spending ballooned.

The "liberal give away programs" (by which I assume you mean welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc) are not the problem. The problem is that Republicans want to give away money with no strings attached and no oversight. They just want the money to go into the pockets of their rich buddies (Halliburton, etc).

Liberal-sided folks on this board have been telling the conservative-sided to "prove" their arguments. Now it's your turn. Prove that all the Republicans want to do is give their money away to their rich buddies. And don't just say Haliburton, etc. Come up with something concrete or don't come at all.

 

[Cyclonepride]

The Republicans (supposedly "conservative") were in charge of the House, the Senate and White House for 6 years and the amount of non-military spending ballooned.

The "liberal give away programs" (by which I assume you mean welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc) are not the problem. The problem is that Republicans want to give away money with no strings attached and no oversight. They just want the money to go into the pockets of their rich buddies (Halliburton, etc).

The bulk of the Republican party is no longer conservative, so I would count many Republicans as liberal. So anyone who gives money away is a liberal in my book. I am a registered independent for this reason, though my political views follow the conservative wing of the Republican party fairly closely.

 

[Cyclonepride]

But if divided by population we are by far the dirtiest. Europe's problems have more to do with their labor laws than their environmental laws. The race to the bottom scenario you propose has some merit, but is not all it is cracked up to be. Companies are not quite that mobile because of the capital investments they have already made here. Additionally, there are major benefits to being located here, such as ease of distribution, the ability to more quickly react to market fluctuations, and an educated workforce.

Additionally, nothing said so far tends to rebut my general argument that we need to take the lead on environmental issues if we hope to be able to influence other countries to make changes. China's economy has been growing at a double digit pace and they are set to far surpass us in coal burning. They aren't using much in the way of "clean coal" technology either.

The specific problems that I am talking about are directly related to Kyoto. 25% increases in electric bills, factories shutting down for parts of the day, etc.

Are you saying that China will follow our lead? :laugh8kb: :laugh8kb: :laugh8kb: :laugh8kb: I am afraid that China does not and will never care what the world, or the United States does, or thinks. They are solely out for their own self-interest. Period.

And I almost forgot, dividing pollution by population instead of by GDP suggests that the ability to reproduce without the ability to create positive gain is as valued an asset to the world, as all the technological advances and life enhancing improvements of an industrialized society.

 

[cyclonenum1]

If your lawyer charges that much you need a new lawyer. It is typically 1/3 for a case that goes to a verdict, less if they settle prior to that. You also need to realize that lawyers who take cases on a contingent fee are taking the risk of getting nothing if they lose the case. Losing one major case means that a lawyer has invested major time and resources and gotten nothing. The major advantage of a contingent fee system is that it allows people who could not otherwise afford to bring a suit to do so.

Dude, I leased office space to a couple of lawyers so I am quite aware of what they charged and it was 40-50% (very successful guys by the way). I am in a different business but I also work on deals that I may not win that cost me time and money...and I still make 1-5%. The contingent fee system leads to both plaintiffs and lawyers "hunting" for cases.

 

[cyclonenum1]

The Republicans (supposedly "conservative") were in charge of the House, the Senate and White House for 6 years and the amount of non-military spending ballooned.

The "liberal give away programs" (by which I assume you mean welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc) are not the problem. The problem is that Republicans want to give away money with no strings attached and no oversight. They just want the money to go into the pockets of their rich buddies (Halliburton, etc).

I agree with one thing you say...the Republicans were not conservative in their approach. Shame on them. It cost them this last election.

Actually, go look at the budget and you will see the the "social welfare" programs you mention dwarf all other federal spending (and it is not even close). Unfortunately, the Republicans were complicitus in increasing this spending with things like the Prescription Drug law that was enacted...not with back door payments to their "rich buddies".

 

[spk123]

Ron Paul all the way.

When he gets eliminated in the primaries- then I have no clue... Probably the Libertarian candidate.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Care to provide any data to back up this statement?

Actually cycloneworld has posted several excellent items that back me up very well. How about you proving that we are one of the world's dirtiest and least environmentally friendly countries?

Frankly, all you have to do is travel a little (or watch a little TV) to see how clean and environmentally friendly our country is. Go visit Mexico and see if it's cleaner than here...or go visit India and do the same. Or how about the old eastern block European countries...check them out to see what type of black smoke goes into the sky from factories. Go to some of the third world countries and see the raw sewage running in the streets. Go to Cuba and see if the cars they have are using catalytic converters and they use reduced emmissions gasoline.

 

[cyclonenum1]

But if divided by population we are by far the dirtiest. Europe's problems have more to do with their labor laws than their environmental laws. The race to the bottom scenario you propose has some merit, but is not all it is cracked up to be. Companies are not quite that mobile because of the capital investments they have already made here. Additionally, there are major benefits to being located here, such as ease of distribution, the ability to more quickly react to market fluctuations, and an educated workforce.

Additionally, nothing said so far tends to rebut my general argument that we need to take the lead on environmental issues if we hope to be able to influence other countries to make changes. China's economy has been growing at a double digit pace and they are set to far surpass us in coal burning. They aren't using much in the way of "clean coal" technology either.

All of our over-regulation and over-taxation has made it increasingly costly to do business in the US. In this global economy companies are increasingly mobile. In fact, Halliburton just decided to move its headquarters from Dallas to Dubai!

 

[IsUaClone2]

Start with the A-B-C....

I am going with the strategy I saw on a bumper sticker:

ANYONE BUT HILLARY

....Anyone But Clinton. That is the first serious step to take. Bill Clinton never compromised his morals (inasmuch he didn't have any) but remember that Hillary taught him everything he knows.

 

[Schriner]

Actually cycloneworld has posted several excellent items that back me up very well. How about you proving that we are one of the world's dirtiest and least environmentally friendly countries?

Frankly, all you have to do is travel a little (or watch a little TV) to see how clean and environmentally friendly our country is. Go visit Mexico and see if it's cleaner than here...or go visit India and do the same. Or how about the old eastern block European countries...check them out to see what type of black smoke goes into the sky from factories. Go to some of the third world countries and see the raw sewage running in the streets. Go to Cuba and see if the cars they have are using catalytic converters and they use reduced emmissions gasoline.

I never said we are one of the world's dirtiest and least environmentally friendly conutries. But I've also never heard anyone argue that "the US is the cleanest, most environmentally friendly nation in the world". I'd agree that we are one of them, just had a hard time with being number 1.

A quick search led to the following, which I didn't read all that closely, nor do I know what all the criteria are, caveat, caveat, but this was more in line with what I expected (New Zealand #1, US #28), generally speaking. Note that this also supports your observations about third world countries.

http://www.yale.edu/epi/2006EPI_Rankings.pdf

 

[Kyle]

Dude, I leased office space to a couple of lawyers so I am quite aware of what they charged and it was 40-50% (very successful guys by the way). I am in a different business but I also work on deals that I may not win that cost me time and money...and I still make 1-5%. The contingent fee system leads to both plaintiffs and lawyers "hunting" for cases.

Dude, I'm in law school so I have quite a bit of contact with lawyers as well. There is clearly variation, but most I know charge closer to 1/3. The system may lead to plaintiffs searching for cases since it does not cost them anything. However, it actually makes lawyers hesitant to take bad cases because if they lose them then they don't get anything. Again, the contingent fee also allows those with good cases to bring them when they otherwise could not afford it.

 

[clone33]

As a social/neoconservative republican, I do not like the top choices in the Republican party. Nor do I like any of the choices in the Democratic party. I dont think Giuliani or McCain are conservative nough for me, and as a strict methodist, I will not vote for a mormon. call me a bigot, or whatever, but I dont think he will defend my strict views. I like Huckabee, or Brownback.

 

[Cyclone_Power]

As a moderate voter who voted for Bush in '04, I would really like to see a candidate that has an actual PLAN for Iraq. I'm sick and tired of hearing them talk about what a bad job Bush has done, and that if they had been in office it never would have happened. It seems everyone just wants to point fingers, and doesn't have an actual solution. Obama impresses me a lot when he speaks, but he is too far left for my liking and really doesn't have that much experience in politics. As far as Republicans, I'm not really that high on any of them yet. I like Giulianni as a person, but he doesn't really seem to be a republican with his policies.

This is going to be a very hard decision.

 

[Kyle]

As a moderate voter who voted for Bush in '04, I would really like to see a candidate that has an actual PLAN for Iraq.

Plan For Iraq

Biden has had a plan for quite some time and as far as I know is the only candidate who has been willing to provide anything concrete. Unfortunatelly, by the time the election rolls around anything people put out now will be fairly outdated and the candidates from either party will probably parrot the popular sentiment of the time.

 

[sdillon500]

It has to be Barry Obama in '08. McCain has completely betrayed the principles that he ran on in 2000, Giuliani is a complete d-bag who uses 9-11 to prop up his failing campaign, and if Mitt Romney was a Democrat, right-wingers would tear him apart for being a pale imitation of John Kerry.

Other Democrats are even worse. You can see the ambition seeping out of Hillary Clinton, she doesn't say anything before it's been cross-checked by her advisors. John Edwards? Jimmy Carter part two, without the diplomatic credentials. As for the other candidates, you could combine them all into a super Voltron-esque candidate and they still wouldn't manage to pull double-digits in the polls.

In summation, go Barry!

 

[Cydkar]

I'm church going and am pro choice. I'm not arguing and respect your stance.

 

[joepublic]

Plan For Iraq

Biden has had a plan for quite some time and as far as I know is the only candidate who has been willing to provide anything concrete. Unfortunatelly, by the time the election rolls around anything people put out now will be fairly outdated and the candidates from either party will probably parrot the popular sentiment of the time.

Biden's plan for Iraq is basically political. I'm not sure you can have a political solution that works with people who want us dead.

The bushies big problem with the terrorists and Iraq was not going in hard, leveling communities, mosques etc and just pounding the snot out of everything. Then repeat and rinse as many times as necessary.

We have forgotten how to fight wars.