Toro

The Rhinocerous Party was awesome!

Argus 1. You are dead right in that Chavez's rhetoric goes too far. He has said some things about Bush that if Bush said them about Chavez, the Left would go bananas. eureka 2. You are dead right about Chavez's complaint about agricultural subsidies hurting the third world. The US and Europe's idiotic agricultural subsidies may be the single most damaging policy against the poorest nation in the world and should be suspended ASAP. 3. However, I'd disagree with you that he is having much of an impact amongst Latin American governments, with maybe the exception being Bolivia. Lulu is running a very centrist, if not centre-right government in Brazil. In fact, Brazillian bonds may be a very good investment right here because of the government's pro-business policies.

Yup, the Clintons are centrists and Kerry ran as a centrist, though he is a liberal senator. But the Democratic Party gets their money from the corporations AND the unions AND the trial lawyers. If you run as a leftist in America nationally, you will get crushed. So be pure, be a leftist, and lose. Simple as that. The Republican Party would salivate at the Dems moving left. It becomes easier for them.

Well I'm voting for Don Cherry.

Global growth rates. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3710

I live in Tallahasssee and have lived in Saskatoon. The two cities are of similar size, both with sizeable student populations. The murder rate is half here what it is in Saskatoon.

C'mon! The newspapers covering it up! Dont' be silly If that really occurred, that story would have made reporters' careers. It didn't appear in the real media because it didn't happen. Instead, it appears in the Fringe media because they cannot accept that they lost.

Exit polls are nonsense. This idea that somehow the Republicans "cheated" because the exit polls had them trailing is silly. Exit polls are not scientific. They ask people as they leave the polling both who they voted for. Generally, women vote earlier in the day and men go later. Women generally vote Democrat, men vote Republican. Also, minorities tend to vote earlier in the day as well. So don't take anything from Ohio exit polls or anywhere else as examples of "cheating."

Depends what you want. Vancouver, IMHO, is the best city in the world. Great weather (more clouds than Calgary but warmer with little snow), spectacularly beautiful, big enough to get all sorts of great events. However, you will make more money in Calgary. Calgary is also cheaper and easier to get around.

I certainly agree with you, Montgomery, that Bush isn't particularly conservative on economic issues. Non-defense government spending is about 21% of the economy, compared to 17% when he took office. Its also interesting if you breakdown the demos of the independents. They're economic conservatives, social moderates and somewhat hawkish on defense. That's the math the Dems have to deal with. And that's why, eureka, If you don't think the Dems have to track to the Right, they will lose every election. Or if they do win, it will be because the GOP base stays home.

Nuclear power is becoming more of an option. I cannot remember the numbers, but the difference between the cost of generating power by nuclear means versus conventional means has narrowed fairly dramatically over the last few years because the price of energy has soard.

Its both. As populations age, they become more conservative. Also, as I said previously, the population shift is away from the northeast towards the South and the West. But the Republicans have spent a great deal of time and money to shift the debate their way. From the early 1960s well into the 1980s, the Left dominated the media. That's no longer the case. Only recently it seems that the Dems realized they were losing the battle. Air America, as feeble as it is, is an example of what the Left must do if they want to scape back lost ground. Bill Clinton's victories masked this trend, but it was certainly happening in the 1990s. The GOP won control of the House in the 1990s and the shift in the senate began then too. Also, its debateable whether or not Slick Willie would have won if Perot hadn't run. But Clinton was a brilliant politician and he understand that he had to track to the right to win. Many of you complain about the Democrats shift to the right under Clinton, but they had no choice. The Democrats simply cannot win if they don't capture a portion of the centre-right vote.

Even so, 40 v. 20 or 34 v. 21, the liberals have a lot of work to do. The fact that the term "liberal" is a prejorative word demonstrates that the Right is winning. Bush won the majority of married women. Bush won 45% of the Hispanic vote. Its hard for the Dems to win with those numbers.

In polls, 40% of American's describe themselves as conservatives, 40% as moderates and 20% as liberals. Since 1964, only one Democrat has ever won more than 50% of the electoral vote - Carter - and that was because the nation faced one of the worst legal crisis in its history with Watergate. Slick Wille is the only Democrat to be re-elected in a half century. No Democrat has been elected President from outside the South since 1960. The population is shifting southward and westward into more Republican leaning states. The simple fact is that the Democrats must track to the centre, if not the right, if they have any chance.

Does that include all taxes - property, excise, sales, payroll, etc., instead of just income? I would like to know. That would be interesting. Can you supply a link?

Shoop. Exactly. It makes you wonder why Presidents run a second time. They all seem to get into political trouble in the second term. The GOP will lose seats next year. The only question is whether they will lose either chamber. Its unlikely. Simply because the Republicans are imploding doesn't mean the Dems will gain, or at least gain much. Nobody knows what the Democrats stand for. And if they nominate someone from the Dean wing, they'll get crushed. Black Dog Do not use this as evidence that the conservative movement is cracking up. That's hopeful thinking. The Right have been winning almost all the battles over the past two decades. Even when they lose elections, they have pulled the Democratic Party to the right. If the Left in America thinks all they have to do is stand aside, then they will lose over and over again. The Left has a lot of work to do if it wants to ascend to prominence.

That makes sense Yaro. Investors are expedited. So I assumed it was either that, or it was before the 1970s, or you were some super-talented individual, i.e. athlete, musician, etc., who also gets preferences. Its not hard to come and work in the US. It is onerous to get a Green Card for most people though.

Remember, the euro is only 7 years old. And the biggest nations in the eurozone are violating their own covenants - Italy, with a deficit of over 6% of GDP (more than twice that of America BTW) being by far the biggest.

Speaking of loons hijacking...

There's too much capacity in the global auto industry. I think August is correct. At some time, cars will no longer be made in North America. I was looking at the balance sheet of GM not too long ago. The pension and healthcare liabilities alone are around $70 billion while equity is about $20 billion. I would not own the stock. There is a fair chance that GM and F will also file some time in the future.

Stratfor is saying that American intelligence is beginning to believe bin Laden may be dead. http:///www.stratfor.com

thelonius Don't get me wrong. I have owned gold for a long time now as a hedge against both the dollar as well other paper currencies depreciating, which inevitably had to happen. I was buying gold heavily a day after the 2002 Congressional elections since the Republicans all but told you that they were going to crack the dollar. I am still concerned about the value of the dollar, though less concerned than a year ago as interest rates in the US are the highest in the G3 and going higher - that's what you'd expect to happen when you run such large deficits. Also, since 65% of the global reserves are dollars, its prudent for central banks to diversify into other currencies. But you have to understand the genesis of this idea and the motivations of Iran. The idea of pricing oil in euros came out of OPEC when the euro was soaring against dollar. Since the dollar was falling, so was the value of oil OPEC was receiving. But I always thought that a collapsing dollar was untenable to Europe and Japan since their economies were so weak, and thus, they too would do would follow the lead of the US and devalue their currencies. When this happens, the value of all hard commodities rises (all things being equal) against paper currencies, i.e. gold, silver, nickel, copper, real estate, oil, natural gas, coffee, sugar, etc. This is what has happened, and the value of oil in euros also soared. This idea gained prominence when it was floated by the Saudi minister of energy. Now you don't hear this anymore, at least not from credible sources. As for Iran using euros - of course they want to use euros! The US has singled them out as one of the "axis of evil." Why would they want to transact in a currency of a country that is openly hostile to them and invaded one of the countries that was also part of the "axis of evil". As for an oil exchange in Iran, for the same reasons, why would Iran want to have anything to do with the NYMEX where oil is traded? Iran had billions of dollars seized by America after the hostage crisis. Why would they risk having to own futures contracts domiciled in America? Also, it makes commercial sense and is perfectly rational for Iran to try to develop an oil exchange. Personally, I support the idea fully. The more they're exposed to the benefits of capitalism, the more likely they are to reform their society. That's a good thing.

Oh, I "dod" understand. When I first heard this idea that trading oil in Euros will somehow lead to the collapse the US economy, I laughed. I thought they were joking. But no, they were serious. The total value of oil traded is a fraction to the total volume of all securities, contracts, commodities, currencies, bonds, etc. Removing oil from the daily volume of total trading would barely be noticeable, let alone have a massive effect on the flows of currencies. Second, the majority of oil transactions by dollar volume already do not occur in dollars. Dollars are merely a reference point. If an Italian oil company is going to sell to a Swiss buyer, the transaction will be in euros and franks, not dollars. Finally, why would anyone trade in Iran, considering the mullahs haven't got a particulary good record on upholding contract rights, which are critical for the smooth functioning of a futures exchange? Certainly, Saudi Arabia would not, which, if you have a sliver of understanding of the region, you'd know why. And now I await the unusual response.

the only persons on this planet, that would try to deny it, are NEOCON NAZIS. ask your friends directly about it.Tell them to look into it.I assure you the answer will be utterly one of shock and awe ! try googling it .Do something usefull ,instead of dribbling on about how you know everybody thats important.And you never heard about it,so it must not be accurate.You won't find this on the front page news ,nor in the education system. But it is however accurate and factually sound. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No Junior. I've heard about the Tehran Bourse. What you're telling me is not news. But your analysis is one from the far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far left. Its not one to be taken seriously

This Iran oil-trading thing is utterly bizarre. Its such a joke that its barely worth the time to respond. I have had many, many conversations with people in the oil business and investment business over the years, and never have I ever heard anyone, anyone at all, ever mention this as a potential problem. Not once. Another very, very odd myth put forth by the extreme left.