This is what i hate about politics it's to difficult for peons like me to understand. ( But I want too ). They should just have a web page with columns.. Column A - Hillary Column B - Obama Row A,B,C,D,E,ETC.. - Issues That way we can see there points of views Keep it Simple Stupid - K.I.S.S.
That's ok though, because after his tax hike on income, capital gain, dividend, SS, economy will really be in the tank. Your tax rate will be higher, but the dollar amount might actually go down.
Thank you. Our country is on the verge of a recession (could escape it, though), and this clown wants to raise taxes. What a damned fool
There is no question that the current Conservative minority government in Canada is in tight with the Republicans, and that it is no friend of the Democrats, and that without the Republicans in power in the US its chances of retaining power in Canada would be greatly reduced. It’s also looking more and more like this was some kind of manipulative interference in the US electoral process not by the Canadian government but by people at the highest levels of the Conservative party
Changing NAFTA would be a BIG mistake, it benefits everyone....according to a report here in Canada, Obama's economical advisor had a *wink wink* with someone here about REALLY wanting to change NAFTA. But Obama denies this.......to me I think it's just political posturing. Both Hillary and Obama are lying………. it’s all about getting votes. Though both will make better Presidents than McCain, please don’t vote for him, he’s George Bush II, don’t make this mistake for a third term in a row… PLEASE, our economy here in Canada is tied to yours, so don’t screw this up…... PLEASE!!
hey bigtexxx can you post a link on the proposed tax increases that Obama will put on us. The sites like cnn.com,new-york times,Houston Chronicle doesn't have much info.. I would like to read into this more.
For a pretty good brief history and summary of the NAFTA issue see this article. I don't think there is anything here specifically on trucking standards, though. Parsing the great Ohio NAFTA pander http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/308306
this article and the article bass posted are both disengenuous in the sense that the things they claim can be done are what hillary and obama suggested in the debate. however the way both are written, you'd think hillary and obama were running on "KIll NAFTA". from the article Both imply that they are fierce critics of NAFTA. But in reality, both are calling for amendments – on labour rights and the environment – that would not fundamentally alter the dynamics of the deal. the bolded par is what both candidates suggested in the debate. That's all they promised. so if you write an article saying they are pandering, but then offering the changes that they suggested, why are you saying they are pandering. did this guy watch the debate
Good points. I didn’t watch the debate so I’m not as up on this issue as I should be. It could well be that the author of this piece is doing some pandering of his own.
Clinton has been emphasizing opting out of NAFTA? Do you have a link? Most of what I have heard from her campaign has been essentially the same as Obama's to ammend it, not end it. I saw a speech of her's in South Texas where she acknowledged that NAFTA had greatly benefitted the local economy there.
I don't know enough about Canadian politics but this seems like a really risky tactic on the Conservative party and one that could really potentially backfire on them. While McCain matches up better against Clinton than Obama it is far from guarenteed that he could beat her. While a Clinton campaign might take advantage of a Canadian dirty trick its not likely they will be any more friendly to the Conservative party than Obama will be. Without knowing more about Canada I'm somewhat skeptical that this is a dirty trick from the Canadian Conservatives as the risk of this blowing up on them seems to outweigh embarrassment for Obama.
Yes, it would be risky, but to make a long story about Canadian politics short, they may well have felt that it was an opportunity they had to take. They are a first time government and it is a minority government with only 40% of the seats, which they won with only 36% of the vote. They are also the most right wing party in Canada, so they are hanging on by a thread as it is. They have made no deals with any other parties to support them and I doubt that any other party would support them, but the other parties are in such relative disarray at the moment, and they believe that the Canadian would not want another election right now, that they are not bringing down this government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2006#Overall_results The Canadian political scene at the federal level is a convoluted mess for a number of reasons, including the fact that a separatist party currently has 49 of the 308 seats and that the leader of the official oppositions Liberals was a fall back choice who was 4th on the first ballot of their leadership convention. Note also that there is currently another controversy involving the Conservatives going on at the moment where they are being accused of bribing a terminally ill independent member of government to vote with them to bring down the last government. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080304.wharcad0304/BNStory/National/home http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/29/cadman-daughter.html
This issue really came back to SPANK Obama hard in Ohio -- he lost by much more than any poll would have suggested prior to yesterday. Double talk, secret side deals, and pandering isn't good for winning a campaign, Obama. Take note.
what did you say when your candidate who isn't even in the race any more told michigan he would bring their jobs back? also, these are the facts, obama and hillary said he would require the same environmental and worker standards for canada and mexico that the us companies who stay on us soil have to deal with. do you agree or disagree?
