Yes. The three top Democrats are for Cap 'n Trade. That means the big polluters pay more the more they pollute.

I think that's ridiculous.

Ron Paul has made me come around to his thinking about the environment and that it's rooted in property rights. If a big polluter is causing harm in an area, people ought to be able to take that company down altogether through the legal process.

It's all patchwork and half-measures with the Democrats. Let the companies pollute, but tax them more for it. They can already afford it, so how does that clean up the environment? Under Paul's plan, if you pollute, you get shut down, which means other sources of energy that are clean will be disproportionately in the advantage and allowed to thrive because of it.

I would go even further and offer huge incentives to corporations and buildings to have solar panels and I would take away the huge corporate subsidies to the oil lobby and put some of that in wind and other power.

I love that Paul went to Iowa and told them that ethanol isn't the way to go and then gets 10% of the vote when he was polling at 5-6% the whole time.

There is no candidate, yet again, who has made the environment a spotlight issue. Right now it's the economy, immigration, and "CHANGE" "CHANGE" "CHANGE" without any further explanation.

Fair enough.

You sound defeated and resigned to an Obama presidency. I don't see him as a 'slam dunk', not at all. He has some shady dealings that will resurface if he gets the nod. And he talks alot but doesn't really say anything. Really, he's just another tax and spend liberal.

__________________
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

I think the public sector could have a better impact in reducing costs for the private sector through its use of natural public sector monopolies (via its scale economy potential).

As an example, an executive order requiring all (e.g. federal) public sector transportation to be hydrogen, electric, or a combination; could result in better mass production techniques that could eventually reduce costs to the individual consumer.

It may also be enough reduction in pollution "charges" to offset those "costs" that would be incurred by the private sector.

Ending the war in Iraq would save much. Raising the tax for the companies who outsource would save much. These art two simple examples.

I have made up my mind on Obama for a long time. He is what this country needs a young energetic voice who can create unity in this country. That is why on Febuary 5th I will cast my vote for him.

I think this country actually needs someone who knows what they're doing.

Seriously, whenever someone who likes Obama talks about why they like him, they never mention anything specific about his policies. They always just point out that he's young, has a good personality, and wants change.

And how exactly is he going to create unity? The only way for someone to do that is to be admired and liked by both parties, which is a trait that not a single candidate possesses.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

And more than that. But, if you are so interested in what a particular candidate is thinking about a particular issue, you should either listen to him, or read his policy blueprints. Sure you may not find much information on web sites like this.

If someone that you point out like Obama that much, but keep silent, it is up to you to dig out the reason for his love and support for him. People are impressed by him in some way or other and they also have knowledge about his standing on key issues. Their being silent does not mean they follow him sheepishly.

This is a cheap way of discrediting Obama.

Unity is accomplished when people are able to think beyond their ideologic frames. Obama does not have a magic ball and stick to give each fellow Americans to realize the unity. He comes out with a promise. Remember, it does not take a genius for Bush and Co to divide the country badly. Maybe the best answer to your question would be: Obama will accomplished the unity goal by simply doing oppossite to what Bush and Co. have done until now.

On which specific issue you want to be fed?

Ethics? Health care? Economy? The Elderly people? Education? Energy? Fiscal responsiblity? Rural America? Immigration? Poverty? Women? Civil rights? Foreign policy? Veterans?

WHICH? Have you made up your mind on which issue you want to be fed?

That's great, bobama! Fired up! Ready to go! Barack for change for the better.

As you can see people like Mike Huckabee and Colin Powell have already said how good Barack has been doing and most (not all) politicans have 99.99% of there work done by other people so if Barack surronds himself with great people he will do great things, no doubt

Alright, I just reread my post and didn't find the parts where I said I am unfamiliar with Obama's policies or where I asked others to tell me what his policies are. So that means that you're either replying to the wrong post or you completely misunderstood it.

I am familiar with Obama's policies. I have a feeling that a decent share of his supporters do not. This is due to Obama supporters often using extremely vague and nebulous terms for their reasons. It's a rare thing when I hear people champion his specific policies, I usually hear things like he's "young" and "full of spirit" and "about change". Those words don't mean a thing.

This is not an attempt to discredit Obama. If someone reads his policies, weighs him against other candidates and after careful consideration comes to the conclusion that Obama is the man to vote for, that's awesome. I couldn't be more thrilled.

I'm sure a majority of Obama supporters went through this process. But I think a sizable amount may support him because he's the "awesome new thing".

Exactly what I'm talking about. You just said absolutely nothing.


Feed me all them, double spaced, in a white Times New Roman font. I'll be waiting patiently.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Who said the electorate always did their due dilligence?

The same could be said of any candidate.... Part of their base of support and their voters back them for spurrious reasons that have nothing to do with policy.

Great hair, a nice smile, generational brotherhood, lack of a facial tick, etc...... all reasons that voters choose their candidates. Inspiration , apparent youth, or a fresh face is just as good as any of the others.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

What is Obama's view on the Middle East?

I think we should stop wasting the people's money on mediocre public policy over there. We could use someone in the Oval Office who will simply recognize another state in historic Palestine and move forward from there.

Nobody, and that's the problem.
I understand that people will often base their vote on some really pointless criteria and that there isn't much I can do to change that. However, I can voice my opinion that I think it's totally wrong (thinking about all the people who voted for Bush for absolutely bone headed reasons should be enough to see how short sighted this practice is).

It just seems that this "voting for random reasons" thing is happening a lot more for Obama than other candidates. The guy has charisma, that's for sure, but that charisma seems to be attracting a lot of people to him that have little political knowledge. They like him because he's got a good personality, a fiery spirit, and gives hope. That'd be a good reason to vote for him if we were choosing the next American Idol, but this is the Presidency we're talking.

By the way, I very well may end up voting for Obama, I haven't decided. I don't have a personal vendetta against him or his supporters or anything, despite the way I may come off.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Obama is for a two-state solution in the occupied territories.

I am of the opinion, that American Imperialism is unjustified in modern times. We have a UN. Funded UN mandates could accomplish via Statism, what the several States of that global Institution can only accomplish via Anarchy.

Democracies have never been good at Imperialism as has been evidenced throughout history.

A funded UN mandate, as is somewhat the case with current (military) policy, could help the US focus more on domestic issues. Our situation, at home, can always be improved. We still don't have an underground energy grid that can deliver power to all fifty states, plus Canada and Mexico. Public works will always promote and provide for the general Welfare of the United States. Foreign entanglements will only result in expenditures form our public treasury with no real benefit to America.

How much would we be spending in Iraq, if the UN had maintained its mandate over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? From one perspective, we did not need to invade a sovereign state merely to export democracy without also exporting state's rights.

Our current foreign policy attitude in the Middle East is not, in my opinion, any form of exporting more democracy with weapons of mass destruction. I think the American Moment never was. What happened to the much vaunted values inspired by a Prince of Peace. We are not pagan Romans.

There is still no provision in our Constitution for the common Offense. Why do we need to incur greater costs exporting American Imperialism and not market friendly democracy? From the perspective of our form of federalism, should California lead the world instead of the US federal government? In that same manner, should the State of the US lead the world instead of the duly constituted Institution known as the UN?

What can the US do in a global economy to establish better cooperation with other States that the UN cannot do with sufficient means? At what cost can a single State do, that all the states of a UN Union together could not do more cost effectively?

From my perspective, Obama would simply have more credibility with the African Union in their quest to ensure the domestic tranquility of a region that has experience an excessive amount of Anarchy. A first world Africa would do more to help insure the security of America than can our entire arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.