A Canadians opinion on Democrat candidate for POTUS.

[Guest Peeves]

http://www.theocaldwell.com/

Of course he has previously opined that NO democrat is worthy of election as POTUS. You may have read same about 5 years ago.

Were I voting, it would be for Romney, no hesitation. That does not mean I think he will be a memorable addition to the list all too often like Carter than Clinton or Reagan.

Who wins makes a difference to Canada and Canadians whether they are interested or not.

Theo Caldwell is a Canadian, Irish and American businessman, writer, and former television host. Caldwell is also an investment advisor in the US and Canada, and is president of Caldwell Asset Management, ...

EXCERPT;

"I defy you to watch the video of Barack Obama’s 2007 speech to Hampton University without cringing. In the worst fake accent since Madonna decided she was British, Obama preaches the gospel of grievance to his mostly black audience, claiming that racial bigotry was behind the federal government’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina, while heaping praise on his dyspeptic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Like Obama’s presidency itself, it is an embarrassing display.

In releasing the full, 40-minute video of the 2007 speech – rather than the 9-minute portion that was made available at the time, which informs Obama supporters’ outrageous assertion that this is somehow old news – the Daily Caller and Fox News have performed a tremendous public service. While other media outlets have, predictably, demurred at playing the tape, making the speech available in its totality allows Americans to peek behind the curtain of Obama’s hopey-changey routine. And that could make all the difference.

It is ironic that as this administration is plagued by trillion-dollar deficits, unprecedented debt levels, unemployment above 8 percent, anemic economic growth, a murdered ambassador and subsequent cover-up, the Salafist flag of al Qaeda flying over US embassies, the Fast and Furious scandal, and a deeply unpopular health care law, this little video could be what jars the electorate out of its stupor when it comes to Obama. That’s because America is faster to forgive a failure than a phony.

And Barack Obama is a phony baloney of the first order. It’s not just the Tropic Thunder accent he puts on in the Hampton address – it’s the race-baiting message. Remember, this speech was given three years after Obama’s “no red states, no blue states, but the United States of America” effusion at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched his career."................ cont'd at link.

Caldwell on

Why Canadians Should Root For Romney

Posted: 09/14/2012 12:15 pm

Now I and many more Canadians watch American politics closely, and, we have opinions. Some like myself have American relatives. Caldwell has an opinion that I hear quite frequently..

http://www.huffingto..._b_1883923.html

Excerpt.

But, perched as we are beside the largest consumer market in the world, we have a particular sensitivity, and advantage, when it comes to international trade. The U.S. consumer represents 70 per cent of that country's economy, and 20 per cent of the global economy. Canada benefits most when America is open to its products, and has the money to pay for them. Emotionally satisfying as it may be for Canadians to see the Loonie at parity or soaring above the American dollar, a stronger U.S. currency maximizes Canada's strengths.

Obama inherited a massive budget deficit, which he proceeded to triple. At no point in his projected budget plan does he propose to balance the budget. Those ongoing deficits will be financed in large measure by an increased money supply. This augurs continued weakness in the U.S. dollar, making it harder for Americans to afford Canadian goods.

[Guest Derek L]

http://www.theocaldwell.com/

Of course he has previously opined that NO democrat is worthy of election as POTUS. You may have read same about 5 years ago.

Were I voting, it would be for Romney, no hesitation. That does not mean I think he will be a memorable addition to the list all too often like Carter than Clinton or Reagan.

Who wins makes a difference to Canada and Canadians whether they are interested or not.

Theo Caldwell is a Canadian, Irish and American businessman, writer, and former television host. Caldwell is also an investment advisor in the US and Canada, and is president of Caldwell Asset Management, ...

EXCERPT;

"I defy you to watch the video of Barack Obama’s 2007 speech to Hampton University without cringing. In the worst fake accent since Madonna decided she was British, Obama preaches the gospel of grievance to his mostly black audience, claiming that racial bigotry was behind the federal government’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina, while heaping praise on his dyspeptic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Like Obama’s presidency itself, it is an embarrassing display.

In releasing the full, 40-minute video of the 2007 speech – rather than the 9-minute portion that was made available at the time, which informs Obama supporters’ outrageous assertion that this is somehow old news – the Daily Caller and Fox News have performed a tremendous public service. While other media outlets have, predictably, demurred at playing the tape, making the speech available in its totality allows Americans to peek behind the curtain of Obama’s hopey-changey routine. And that could make all the difference.

It is ironic that as this administration is plagued by trillion-dollar deficits, unprecedented debt levels, unemployment above 8 percent, anemic economic growth, a murdered ambassador and subsequent cover-up, the Salafist flag of al Qaeda flying over US embassies, the Fast and Furious scandal, and a deeply unpopular health care law, this little video could be what jars the electorate out of its stupor when it comes to Obama. That’s because America is faster to forgive a failure than a phony.

And Barack Obama is a phony baloney of the first order. It’s not just the Tropic Thunder accent he puts on in the Hampton address – it’s the race-baiting message. Remember, this speech was given three years after Obama’s “no red states, no blue states, but the United States of America” effusion at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched his career."................ cont'd at link.

Caldwell on

Why Canadians Should Root For Romney

Posted: 09/14/2012 12:15 pm

Now I and many more Canadians watch American politics closely, and, we have opinions. Some like myself have American relatives. Caldwell has an opinion that I hear quite frequently..

http://www.huffingto..._b_1883923.html

Excerpt.

Caldwell makes good points, in my opinion of course, on two key things for Canadians:

Though the Romney plan takes its sweet time in doing so, it does balance the budget eventually, and even some measure of government spending restraint will result in a stronger U.S. greenback. As a matter of basic policy, Romney is, like most Republicans, a free-market, global trader. Obama, meanwhile, like most Democrats, is beholden to American union interests, and thereby eager to hose foreign workers whenever possible.

That should read Canadian workers in the manufacturing sector.

Fundamental to Canada-U.S. trade is, of course, energy. The first of Romney's five principal campaign pledges is that North America will be energy independent by 2020. That means opening the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas, which Obama has blocked.

Energy Independence has been branded about for decades by both parties, but the price of fuel is steadily becoming a serious issue as opposed to an aggravation………..A lofty goal, one of which I won’t hold my breath, but one of which Romney will be forced to act upon if he wants to win a second term…….Here’s hoping.

[cybercoma]

Romney is the better president for Canada's economic interests.

[Guest Derek L]

Romney is the better president for Canada's economic interests.

Definitely, as would a Republican controlled Senate and Congress……….Though there is Protectionism found within the GOP at a State and District level, it’s by far, more rampant within the Democrats……..In the past, I would feel less comfortable with unfettered Free Trade with China, but Romney’s stance on currency manipulators is know………If he follows through is the unknown, though optically he will have to make an attempt to help bolster in some degree his own domestic manufacturing base……..Another form of ideological Protectionism I suppose.

[Shady]

That's why I'm supporting Romney. A stronger American economy means a stronger Canadian economy. If Obama is re-elected, it's going to mean continued anemic economic growth in the US, which is going to significantly hinder our ability to grow our economy.

[cybercoma]

That's why I'm supporting Romney. A stronger American economy means a stronger Canadian economy. If Obama is re-elected, it's going to mean continued anemic economic growth in the US, which is going to significantly hinder our ability to grow our economy.

It has nothing to do with a stronger American economy. The economy is going to strengthen regardless of who is in place. It has to do with Obama cancelling the pipeline from Alberta and Romney being bought and paid for by the oil lobby.

[Guest Derek L]

It has nothing to do with a stronger American economy. The economy is going to strengthen regardless of who is in place. It has to do with Obama cancelling the pipeline from Alberta and Romney being bought and paid for by the oil lobby.

That would be predicated on which “oil lobby” is buying whom………..One would have to ask, who benefits from artificially high price of oil? And what would the net effect be on said “oil lobby” with an increase of North American production?

Who benefits from buying oil from North America as opposed to the Persian Gulf or Venezuela?

President Obama and the Democratic party receive donations from the “oil lobby” just like the Republicans……..Simply look at the energy companies that still maintain virgin holdings within North America and are heavily invested in North American refining capacity versus those companies that “diversified” further into Middle Eastern oil extraction “rights” and refining capacity in China.

The question that’s better asked, what’s more beneficial for North Americans? North American energy, produced by North Americans, or energy from the Gulf?

[Guest Derek L]

To add:

For Obama there is these guys:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/05/us-politico-obama-bp-idUSTRE64420A20100505

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

versus Romney:

http://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/news/world-news/donors+Obama+Romney+campaigns/7416785/story.html

No. 4: Robert Rowling, 58, head of Dallas-based TRT Holdings.

Total: $4.1 million

Rowling has given at least $4.1 million to Republican Party and candidates this election. Most of his donations, $4 million, went to Rove's American Crossroads, both through personal donations and through his firm. Rowling also has given $100,000 to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future super PAC. Rowling's holdings are worth an estimated $4.8 billion and include Omni Hotels, Gold's Gym and Tana Exploration, his family's oil company. Rowling once told the Texas Tribune he prefers political donations to lobbying efforts.

and:

No. 5: William Koch, 72, an industrialist whose South Florida-based energy and mining conglomerate is worth an estimated $4 billion.

Total: $4 million

Koch has given $4 million to the Restore Our Future, including a $250,000 personal donation and $3.75 million through his corporation, Oxbow Carbon LLC, and a subsidiary, Huron Carbon. Unlike his brothers, Charles and David Koch, who are longtime supporters of Republican and conservative causes, Bill Koch has funded both Republican and Democratic Party candidates in the past. Koch's corporate interests have repeatedly battled against what company officials have decried as government interference. Oxbow spent $570,000 last year on lobbying in Washington, mostly aimed at mining, safety issues and climate change. The company has complained in federal filings about government delays on permits and has raised concerns about administration changes in regulations that would aid collective bargaining.

Follow the bread crumbs.........

[Shady]

It has nothing to do with a stronger American economy. The economy is going to strengthen regardless of who is in place. It has to do with Obama cancelling the pipeline from Alberta and Romney being bought and paid for by the oil lobby.

No, the economy won't grow the same way no matter who's in charge. That's been obvious for the last 4 years.

[Argus]

I've never been all that fond of Obama. I would have preferred Mccain until he chose that woman as his running mate. I said so four years ago.

That being said, there is just so much to not like about Romney. As a young man, he was an unrepentant bully. He supported the war in Vietnam but ran away to France so he wouldn't have to fight (where have we seen that before?) He was part of the soulless wall street 80s, when hedge funds destroyed companies and lives to make themselves rich. The pictures of Romney with money in his mouth says it all. He makes much of being a Christian, but his chief aim, it seems, as President, will be to stop the government spending money on feeding poor kids in school programs, helping poor seniors with heating fuel subisides, cutting the sick and old off health care, and reducing pensions and workers wages and safety rights. All so he and his rich backers can be even richer than they already are.

Yes, so much to dislike about Romney. And not one single thing I can think of to like. He has no ethics, values or principals that I've seen, and his political positions drift in the wind depending on whatever he thinks will be appealing. And so, at heart, he has no courage. Everything about him screams "false front". And there's no evidence of any real man behind it.

So I agree that, all things considered, Romney might perhaps be economically better for Canada in some ways. Perhaps. But I think he'd be a disaster for the world. A cowardly president with no integrity or convictions can be a dangerous thing.

[Smallc]

It has nothing to do with a stronger American economy. The economy is going to strengthen regardless of who is in place. It has to do with Obama cancelling the pipeline

The pipeline will go ahead no matter who wins.

[Shady]

The pipeline will go ahead no matter who wins.

The pipeline should have been started long ago. Instead, the businesses and workers that would be involved in the project, are still currently sitting on the sidelines.

[Shady]

Let's be honest. If Obama were hypothetically running against Stephen Harper, he'd be using the exact same attacks as he's used on Mitt Romney. Harper's out of touch. Harper favours the rich. Tax cuts for corporations. Wants dirty air and dirty water. Etc. Etc.

[Shady]

I bet Harper even has some investments in China. *gasp*

[Guest Peeves]

I bet Harper even has some investments in China. *gasp*

Yup. Last I counted was a serving for 12 and a butter dish in a 'Regal' pattern.

[Guest American Woman]

The pipeline will go ahead no matter who wins.

Yep.

[WIP]

The pipeline will go ahead no matter who wins.

The human race will continue marching towards extinction no matter who wins! Has anyone mentioned the environment, especially global warming in the debates yet? I don't watch this crap, so I'll just sift through the analysis.

[cybercoma]

The human race will continue marching towards extinction no matter who wins! Has anyone mentioned the environment, especially global warming in the debates yet? I don't watch this crap, so I'll just sift through the analysis.

In 3 presidential debates and 1 VP debate, none of them once mentioned climate change, LGBT issues, the housing crisis, or drug policy.

[Guest Peeves]

The new religion is green and the Pope and bishops are Gore, Suszuki et al.

Dalton and (and other subsidizing regimes) have shown the fallacy of wind power creation.

So long as WE live on oil, we will have to live WITH oil. Those against coal and oil usage are entitled to their position, but, there claims are subject to factual response. Global warming seems a fact, but the causes are multi-factorial contrary to the green 'Pope's' and his followers claims.

Climate change has and always will continue on earth.

[Michael Hardner]

So long as WE live on oil, we will have to live WITH oil. Those against coal and oil usage are entitled to their position, but, there claims are subject to factual response. Global warming seems a fact, but the causes are multi-factorial contrary to the green 'Pope's' and his followers claims.

Climate change has and always will continue on earth.

It's a basic fact that oil is running out and that fossil fuel causes pollution and probably warming too, even if you take 'probably' to mean 51% chance.

So, it makes sense to start transitioning to other ways to supply our energy. I'd much rather just have that conversation than the identity-politics laden version of that discussion.

[Guest Peeves]

It's a basic fact that oil is running out and that fossil fuel causes pollution and probably warming too, even if you take 'probably' to mean 51% chance.

So, it makes sense to start transitioning to other ways to supply our energy. I'd much rather just have that conversation than the identity-politics laden version of that discussion.

Oil and gas supplies are simply not running out and won't for generations. There are untapped and un located supplies yet to be discovered yet as well.

Fossil fuel may or may not be the factor or the major factor, that's in debate. It certainly makes sense to consider alternative sources,but practical ones, not pie in the sky potentials that are not serving a purpose in diminishing the need for oil/gas.

http://toryaardvark.com/2012/06/20/green-energy-fails-again-offshore-wind-farms-are-sinking/

It seems green tree huggers think they are the only ones that can do the math. There are arguments to be made on both sides. There are those that simply advocate or condemn out of hand.

You contend there's an identity - version you prefer not to have. Tuff tity. theres finance, politics and other subtle ties like gettin grich off the green movement as well.

I simply suggest that it is stupid to disavow our need for oil and to set up road blocks preventing its availability until we have an alternative that is PRACTICAL and proven. Wishing wells or tilting wind mills do not a solution make.

http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm

http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm

Other supporting that position are searchable.

[dre]

It's a basic fact that oil is running out and that fossil fuel causes pollution and probably warming too, even if you take 'probably' to mean 51% chance.

So, it makes sense to start transitioning to other ways to supply our energy. I'd much rather just have that conversation than the identity-politics laden version of that discussion.

Thats why the focus should be on things like economics and security and not so much on climate change. People have separated into two different camps on climate change and adopted a sort of bunker mentality. Its not going to be a very useful vehicle for convincing any new people of the need for energy reform. It also generates the worst online discussions in history with the possible exception of the IS/PAL conflict.

Focus on economics... Our current energy paradigm is already an impediment to global economic growth, and the price of oil has doubled in the last ten years. And remember oil will be useless to us long before we actually "run out". Its wide spread use will become cost prohibitive as soon as demand outstrips exploration yields which will come decades or even centuries before the oil really runs out. We are probably less than 20 years from that point. And retooling our energy system is going to be the largest project that humans have ever had to do in history... theres immense economic opportunity.

Focus on security. Energy is a major driver of war and defense spending, and a major cause of global instability and insecurity. It has cost us trillions of dollars. That money could actually be spend on something usefull... You could build a bridge, or make faster data networks or something else that actually enriches civilization.

Obviously theres some people that are just obsessed with the climate change debate, and scouring the internet for blogs that agree with them, and alledging all kinds of vast conspiracies. But we can just leave these people behind to wallow in their own irrelevance, and move on.

Edited October 24, 2012 by dre

[dre]

Oil and gas supplies are simply not running out and won't for generations.

WHen they will run out is irrelevant. They will become too expensive to use as soon as demand outstrips exploration yields, or as soon as we see that coming. Its not going to matter how much oil is still in the ground once a gallon of fuel costs you 10 dollars US, and energy prices and price volatility are already an impediment to economic growth and its going to get worse.

The problem is illustrated here with data from Exxon

Edited October 24, 2012 by dre

[Guest Peeves]

When it costs what it's worth like water will, conservation,driving habits, car size and more economical use of vehicles will become the rule rather than the exception. People still jump in the car to buy a package of gum. Combining trips, drive through donut shops and the like have to be rethought. I still drive about 3-5 miles under the speed limit and cars are passing me like gas was only 50 cents a gal.

Habits will change. Car size shrink. Gas is far too cheap now. Gas guzzling drivers are complaining it's too much at the pump while driving monster vehicles with one alone in the car.

If the price of steak goes up people switch to hamburg.

People are wasteful and unconcerned with energy costs unless...1. they remember when you earned what you got paid, and the value of cash(not credit), meant something. Waste is all around us as I watch the generations that have had it too easy.

Bottled water and gas guzzlers are symptoms of what's wrong. Chickens will come home to roost and gas might well deserve to be $10.00 a litre.

What everyone wants is MORE MORE MORE. What everyone gets is more more more taxes to pay for greed.

[WIP]

In 3 presidential debates and 1 VP debate, none of them once mentioned climate change, LGBT issues, the housing crisis, or drug policy.

With the recent passing of George McGovern, we were reminded again that the era when a populist maverick can steamroll the party establishment and become the presidential contender for either the Republican or Democratic Party's is long since gone. In large part it's because, unless the candidate is already a billionaire, he needs the backing of the billionaires to keep playing the game and win the nomination.

The only difference I can see between Republican and Democrat today is that one party represents the rich, and makes no apologies for it, because they have enough idiots who fantasize about becoming billionaires themselves or will vote for them as long as they ban abortion and gay marriage; while the other party is full of faux populists, who say one thing to the rank and file, and do another when in office to please their real bosses. In actual fact, Obama and Romney represent almost the same billionaires.

The only rivalry going on today in American politics is that some of the new hedge fund billionaires like Paul Singer and John Paulson are clashing with the interests of the established banking and oil billionaires, who are afraid that they will wreck the system.....aside from that, the plutocrats win if Obama is re-elected, and they win if Romney is in the White House. Aside from a few social issues and a little window dressing, nothing will change....and I really wonder how long that will satisfy the majority of Americans in the future?