We are going off topic with this, but health care is very expensive for companies, and many can't do it, not much to do about it. We could give it for free to everyone like canada, however taxes would have to be raised, and from what I have heard the system tends to be a complete nightmare for the doctors.
Oil is our blood, it keeps everything running, and as such is a matter of national security and national interest. Is their price gouging on US oil companies part? I don't know, and no opinion should be made until we see exactly what they are doing (I believe they are potentially being investigated a bit for this).
Exxon-Mobil posts a $40 billion profit and this is the best you can come up with (linky: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22949325/
)? Dude, you are arguing way out of your league.
Oh and they are not being investigated any more. They have been cleared of any connection to price fixing, that is until some independent body decides to cause some stir again and before they get squashed.
This is going way the heck out in OT zone, but generally I vote by which ever candidate has a history and current view that aligns with what I believe is right, and what I believe needs to be done. (scary though huh?)
Did you ever see that episode of Simpsons when you have the two aliens posing as two candidates representing different interests, where if you indeed listen to what they say you can actually notice they are saying the same thing, but arguing it from a different perspective? That's what you are voting for to the dot. There is no candidate that connects closely to your interests. There is only the perception of that.
Just to illustrate, let me refer to the current election race. I can identify with Obama as he comes off really genuine, he comes from the so-called regular classes, and he really seems to care about raising America's standing in the world. To put it simply, he advocates going back to traditional American values, and equal system, equal market, but he has no experience. On the other hand, I can also identify with McCain because he wants to do one thing that is extremely important in the world, and that is fairness in war, respect for international laws of conduct in conflicts, reduction of nuclear arsenal, etc. On top of that, he is as experienced as you can get. So I am left to pick. Less damaging wars and less weapons or going back to traditional values. I have an idea, how about both?
Every problem has multiple facets. Addressing one of those facets only allows each side the take effectively the same position on the problem as a whole but make it seem as though they are taking very different stances.
Finally, I have asked you tell me "when you have had more than two parties viable for election". Not when you had two parties for election. Every election you have ONLY had two parties.Edited by dejanh - 5/28/08 at 11:02am