Barack Obama

[hankhavelock]

So what have you decided? You swanky Americans with your (not so) reluctant approach (lately) to rule the world?

Du you still insist on the presidency to belong to a WASP, or are you finally ready to take the necessary step?

If not my prediction is that this will be the century of the Chinese. The dragon has been awoken... and that is a dragon that will probably invoke the nastiest capitalistic jungle law on all of us. Much worse than what even a MiniCock Cheney could have envisioned it (ooo... maybe not).

I'm sure Barack will be a fine president - I'm also sure that he will not be able to do all that much (but he will still do more than most)... but he holds a symbolic value that goes way beyound what even the lill Catholic Bostoner held in his time. And the point is (aside from the fact that electing the American President is actually too important a matter to leave to Americans) that if you guys dont live up to this challenge, then it's truly and very fast down the drain for both American and Western credibility and values. We'll swiftly be overrun by Chinese economy mixed with Muslim ideology.

Our few last years of Western democratic down-fall will be no fun at all!

So elect wisely, guys and girls!

H

[raterdzzz]

I think Obama will be a great President in the US. Besides, anything is better than the current one, no offense Barack :D

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

I think it's a big step forward that Barack Obama will soon be the first black guy to lose a US presidential election.

[GRH]

I think it's a big step forward that Barack Obama will soon be the first black guy to lose a US presidential election.

That a black man could be a serious contender represents real progress. The fact that we will potentially elect a geriatric "Bush v. 2.0" isn't so much a testament to our progress. How our country keeps being duped by those that want to keep the rich wealthy and the middle class poor astounds me.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

America gets the president it deserves.

Shame the rest of us have to put up with him too.

[rhythmic delivery]

what is the point of the elections in the US, they have already rigged them twice now. i think its quite likly that obama will get in, and i think he is the rite man for the job. but if he gets in you have to ask yourself why whoever it was rigged the election in favor of republicans the last two times why they haven't done it again. i also think if he is elected it will be verry likly that he will be assasinated. (their is still alot of racist people in america, some overtly and alot covertly, they are happy to live next door to a black man but they don't wan't one in power.) they done it to the kenedys and they where white, so i doubt they'll think twice about doing it to a black man.
america has produced some of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century, the kenedy's, martin luther king malcom X martin luther king JR.
and also some of the biggest cunts ever, J edgar hoover, richard milhause nixon, george HW bush and george W bush.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

I do not think a lone nutter could kill the US president now. The security checks are just too good, I don't see any crazy white supremacists getting through it.

The Kennedys were not killed by white supremacists, they were killed by the mob, Malcom X was killed by his own people, the Nation of Islam, and Martin Luther King was only killed after he spoke out against Vietnam and poverty and the FBI stopped protecting him.

If Obama gets in, he won't be whacked, the clever racists will sit tight, they know he can't do much in 4 years, and the crazy ones will be too crazy to get past his security.


Even if he was look what happened with JFK, as soon that bullet touched his crunchy little cranium, the Civil Rights act was pretty much guaranteed to go through, who would be callous enough to vote against a dead man's bill. If Obama got spatted (especially by a tent head) it would be such a huge uproar it would probably cause a bigger upheaval than if he was just quietly president. Obama is not really radical, and he's not really going to change much, but if he had his brains splattered all over his limo, imagine the outrage, there would be riots in the streets, the US would be shaken to the core, who knows what would happen by hte time the dust settles.

[sesame]

Anna, how romantic you are about Obama's brains! :p

[rhythmic delivery]

The Kennedys were not killed by white supremacists, they were killed by the mob, Malcom X was killed by his own people, the Nation of Islam, and Martin Luther King was only killed after he spoke out against Vietnam and poverty and the FBI stopped protecting him.

the mob or the cia.

[sesame]

According to conspiracy theorists, JF Kennedy was assassinated not by Lee Harvey Oswald but a well-coordinated group of people connected to the US Govt. Kennedy was an obstruction to the interests of war-loving military officials and politicians and businessmen. Poor disturbed oswald couldnt have pulled it or shoot him from multiple angles alone. Also, his autopsy was very poorly done and the report was edited.

[jimnaseum]

Rove won the elections because he played to 51% of the voters and against 49%. They are businessmen, not leaders. The Iraq War was a hostile business takeover.
Obama is a desciple of a 1930s Activist named Saul Alinsky. He said there are two kinds of power: Money and People.
You can thank George Bush for electing the first black President who will finally look out for the people.
But I'm superstitious. You never know when something really bad is going to happen.

[rhythmic delivery]

the second gunman on the grassy noel

[jimnaseum]

The grassy NOEL, RD? Are you saying the new baby Jesus was killed in an errant drive-by?

I think there really is a chance Obama could be a fantastic President. I'll have to see who he chooses as VP, I want 16 years of Social healing and the return of the middle class. I hope the real deal hasn't shown his cards yet, and we can put this disgraceful 8 years behind us. Bush and Reagan were cardboard cut-outs. I think Obama has real vision. Can he do it? That's the question. All the money is long gone.
As always, hope for the best, expect the worst.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

I think Obama will turn out to be the next Tony Blair. Smiles a lot, says what we all want to hear, then turns out to be yet another worthless cunt who screws everything up.

[ila]

That a black man could be a serious contender represents real progress.

Why is it that Obama is always referred to as a black man when his mother is white? It would be just as valid to call him a white man.

[sesame]

There you go again, Anna! The usual theme song.
Let the man a fair chance to show his colors first.
Dont crucify him before he does something good or evil.
And then again, he has'nt yet passed the McCain barrier!
Although the Americans are ready to try anything after the Bush nightmare, I have a feeling that they are still prejudiced below the surface. The US is not really ready for a black President. In that light, the political mechanism must have a failsafe hidden somewhere. Or, McCain will win (unlikely). Or, Obama will be a puppet in the hands of someone, he will not have full control. The US is very much of a control freak. If Obama really wins and attains presidency and gets full control,... it will be a miracle!

Ila, put on your glasses and look again, what appears to the eyes? Is it black or white?

[GRH]

Black or white? Haven't you heard of the "one drop rule?" All it takes is one drop of negro blood in the lineage to make you black. However ridiculous this might be, is it any wonder that in today's "progressive" society, a man/woman is still judged by the color of the skin? As sesame suggests, to many, the lineage matters less than the look. And as he also suggests, I too am afraid that there are many subtle racists in America. They are not necessarily the raging, KKK types, but they fear electing anything "other" than the self they see in a mirror. A real travesty in my mind.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

He's sure blacker than anyone else that's been a presidential contender.

[ila]

Why is it that Obama is always referred to as a black man when his mother is white? It would be just as valid to call him a white man.

Ila, put on your glasses and look again, what appears to the eyes? Is it black or white?

The fact remains that Obama's father is black and his mother is white. So it would be just as appropriate to call him white as to call him black.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

The fact remains that Obama's father is black and his mother is white. So it would be just as appropriate to call him white as to call him black.

The fact remains that there's no such race as 'black' and no such race as 'white', those are description of skin colour, and Obama is black. The fact that he is of half European and half African decent does not matter, the fact is he ain't white.

http://usversusthem.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/white-obama-36389.jpg

[ila]

Obama's handlers and hangers-on like to portray Obama as having a lot in common with the middle class everyday American yet his higher education consisted of attending Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. These are three prestigious institutes where you are unlikely to find your typical everyday middle class person. The expenses alone of attending would financially cripple a normal person and the entrance requirements are not exactly set low. So really just how much in common does Obama have with a middle class citizen.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Well, with a net worth of 1.3 million, he's not the average chap, but compare that to McCain with 200 million and you can see who's closer.

Obama's family doesn't seem to be particularly rich, so I assume he got a scholarship to Harvard, having a smart guy as president doen't seem like a bad idea. Imagine if people would only vote average intelligence people into power. Eek.

[ila]

Well, with a net worth of 1.3 million, he's not the average chap, but compare that to McCain with 200 million and you can see who's closer.


Most of McCain's wealth comes from his second wife.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Most of McCain's wealth comes from his second wife.

40.4 million of it is from wherever the fuck these rich senators get their money so still 40 times richer than Oboe without wifey.

[jimnaseum]

OK you foreigners, lemme break it down for you.
The Republicans live in the Country, mostly white, and crime free.
Democrats live in the city, more diverse and street wise.
My sister is worth 1.3 million, and she's an idiot. With 2 houses.
Barack is not in anybody's pocket, and the biggest danger is that he'll actually try to do something great and start some kind of War.

If I go into a black neighborhood at 3AM, I'm the most rascist motherfucker you ever saw. Those niggers will steal everything you have if you give them the chance, and I say this with experience. Don't kid yourself.

Obama is the Real Deal, I guarantee you. It's going to be exciting to watch what he does. I'm going to back him as much as I can. I sat on my Dad's shoulders at JFK's funeral. It was great to be an American then.

[sesame]

Barack Hussein Obama II: Born Aug 04, 1961 in Honolulu ( Hawaii).

Father: Barack Obama Sr., from Kenya (E. Africa)

Mother: Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas.

Wife: Michelle Robinson, Black American Lawyer.

Children: Malia Ann (daughter)
Natasha (daughter)

Income: Obama family's net worth = $1.3 million.
Tax return states net household income = $4.2 million in 2007
$1 million in 2006
$1.6 million in 2005
The Increase is caused by book sales.

Books: Dreams from my Father
The Audacity of Hope.

Education: Graduate from Columbia University
and Harvard Law School
President of Harvard Law Review.

Profession: Teacher of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Also practiced as a civil rights attorney.

Illinois Senator 1996, re-elected 1998, 2002
Chairman, Illinois Senate's Health & Human Services Committee at2003.
Cooperated with the state police to enact death penalty reforms 2004.
Delivers the Keynote Address, July 2004 Democratic National Convention, Boston. Resigns from Illinois Senate Nov.2004

Spoke about changing US socio economic policies in regard to war. Challenges Bush's Iraq war. Reminds of obligations to US soldiers.

In Jan 2005, he is sworn to US senate. He is the 5th African American senator in US history. Loyal Democrat.

Acts:
Energy policy act 2005
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Secure Fence act 2006
Lugar–Obama or, Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction act
Coburn–Obama Transparency Act.
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act '07
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
Amendment to Defense Authorization Act
Iran Sanctions Enabling Act

Final Status: 2008 Presidential Election nominee of the Democratic Party

======================QUOTES=====================
Regarding Obama's political rise, Author Debra J. Dickerson (End of Blackness) heeds against drawing "fancy" conclusions about America's cultural "progress". She says, "Lumping us all together, erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."

Funny quotes from Obama himself:
1) "... When we get together for Christmas or Thanksgiving, it's like a little mini-United Nations."
2) "I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher!" :p

[ila]

Well, with a net worth of 1.3 million, he's not the average chap, but compare that to McCain with 200 million and you can see who's closer.

1.3 million is not exactly chump change. It really doesn't matter to me how much a person makes per year. (I wouldn't mind making 1 million or more per year). It is very rare to find a politician at the highest level in any democratic country that is not rich. My point is that since most politicians seeking high office are quite well off financially it is highly unlikely that any could could claim to have something in common with the middle class. A lot of these politicians will not necessarily claim to be just like the common person, but somebody in the party machinery will intimate such.

[hankhavelock]

http://my.barackobama.com/barackspeech

[TracyCoxx]

So what have you decided? You swanky Americans with your (not so) reluctant approach (lately) to rule the world?

Du you still insist on the presidency to belong to a WASP, or are you finally ready to take the necessary step?

I my opinion, I don't think we should elect a black person for the sake of electing a black person. I vote for the person regardless of their color and regardless of whichever of the 3 genders they identify with ;)

For one, Obama only has 3 years of experience in the senate. Most of those 3 years were spent campaigning. His grasp of foreign affairs isn't very good. When the Georgia situation came up he called for both sides to stop the fighting. Georgia was in full retreat and getting it's ass kicked. They weren't fighting. He refuses to acknowledge the reality of the Iraq situation and will not acknowledge the successes there are a result of our military. I also find it disturbing that so many of his supporters do not really know what he stands for. They hear his call for change and do not seem to realize that yes, there will be a change, but not necessarily a good one.

His philosophy aligns itself more with that of socialism. That simply is not a system that works. Ask Russia, N. Korea, etc. And it certainly isn't a philosophy that brought America to where it is. His grasp of economics isn't impressive either. He wanted to solve the problems of global warming and education by using Nasa's budget. Apparently he didn't realize the money Nasa get's is only .4% of the budget. Since then he has apparently been educated and has changed his mind.

John McCain seems ok to me. Except for possibly being as anti-science as Bush has been. That is disturbing. But I think he will do better as president than Obama, and I don't want to see this country become socialist. It already is happening too much for my taste.

[sesame]

Is Barack Obama a SOCIALIST? Huh???

Thats what TracyCoxx just implied. :p

[sesame]

A few cartoons for McCain lovers: sit this one out.
The punk in the 1st cartoon looks like Bush. :p
Yeah, he looks really conservative! ;)

[sesame]

And this one is for Hillary and Obama.
For one, Obama only has 3 years of experience in the senate. When the experienced politicians are constantly fucking up matters, thats when you need a change.

[TracyCoxx]

When the experienced politicians are constantly fucking up matters, thats when you need a change.

I already agreed with that. There would definitely be change LOL.

[TheSkronkDonkey]

Obama is big on rhetoric, but he has socialist views I agree with and is far more educated and responsible and in touch with the common man than that buffoon McCain. If virtually everything McCain stands for didn't already repulse me, his choice of VIP firmly has. Voting McCain/Palin is akin to a death wish. Without touching on her love of killing animals for sport, her hetero-only marital views, her strict anti-abortion stance and various other things, Palin is a creationist, which means she wants a kooky account of the origin of life, the universe and everything taught alongside -- translation: in subversion of -- the scientific model of evolution by means of natural selection. That's not only deeply unscientific and unconsitutional, it's dangerous. Remember: McCain is already 72 and this woman would only be a heartbeat away from the presidency, despite her backwards views and almost total lack of experience on any and every political level. McCain is one cynical prick. That he could even think of selecting this person to court disillusioned women voters, to say nothing of actually selecting her, or his courting of said women voters in such a transparent and insulting way, makes me feel nothing but contempt for the Republican machine. It's also blatantly obvious he wants to cut scientific funding to avoid raising taxes for the super rich. All I can say is fuck him and the horse he's trying to ride in on.

A bit of further reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/the-worst-vice-presidenti_b_122491.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030902152.html?sub=new

[TracyCoxx]

I also find it disturbing that so many of his supporters do not really know what he stands for. They hear his call for change and do not seem to realize that yes, there will be a change, but not necessarily a good one.

Is Barack Obama a SOCIALIST? Huh???

See? They don't even know. Google Obama and socialism.

[TracyCoxx]

Palin is a creationist, which means she wants a kooky account of the origin of life, the universe and everything taught alongside -- translation: in subversion of -- the scientific model of evolution by means of natural selection. That's not only deeply unscientific and unconsitutional, it's dangerous. Remember: McCain is already 72 and this woman would only be a heartbeat away from the presidency, despite her backwards views and almost total lack of experience on any and every political level.
No argument there. This is indeed very scary.

[TheSkronkDonkey]

Glad we have a common ground here.

P.S. Typed "VIP" instead of "VP". I suppose they're relatively interchangeable, which is part of the problem.

[Talvenada]

No argument there. This is indeed very scary.

This is just a wild guess, but is that you in your avatar?

You have a very attractive and feminine face. Please, don't take this wrong, but I--my opinion only--believe you'd be a lot cuter & sweeter w/ a bit less hair that's not as vintage. That is, unless you're going specifically for a classic look.

[Ogryn1313]

It is my belief, at some point into Obama's administration, provided he wins, millions of blind sheep-like voters are going to be gravely disappointed and regret voting for a celebrity instead of a president.

[Ogryn1313]

It's an election year. Politics are unavoidable. People apply them to all things. Turst me. I ought to know.

[TracyCoxx]

This is just a wild guess, but is that you in your avatar?

You have a very attractive and feminine face. Please, don't take this wrong, but I--my opinion only--believe you'd be a lot cuter & sweeter w/ a bit less hair that's not as vintage. That is, unless you're going specifically for a classic look.

I wish that were me. No, I just think she looks both beautiful and outrageous. I do like big hair though. Not necessarily that big, but I think a great hairstyle is sexy, and much more interesting than the straight, flat-as-you-can hairstyles that women have been wearing for the past too many years. They keep saying big hair is back. Where??!

I think I have a pretty face, and like wearing longish brunette hair styled nicely. No, I don't have any pics, maybe some day.

[ila]

I wish that were me. No, I just think she looks both beautiful and outrageous. I do like big hair though. Not necessarily that big, but I think a great hairstyle is sexy, and much more interesting than the straight, flat-as-you-can hairstyles that women have been wearing for the past too many years. They keep saying big hair is back. Where??!


I realize this is getting off the thread topic here, but I agree with your views and comments Tracy.

[sesame]

US vice-precidency candidate from the Republican Camp uses her daughter's pregnancy as a masterstroke in the game of politics. Sarah Pelin as the player of games, why am I not surprised?

[Bionca]

Sarah Palin calls herself a "pro-life feminist", she's also firmly anti-gay (with the required "I have gay friends" to try make her positions seem less bigoted). She is a staunch supporter of the "Real ID" act which will make being a pre or non- op T-gal VERY hard as if it isn't hard enough.

She is quite cozy with the Conservative Religious Right and is no friend of trans*people. I'm all for my bio sisters making it, and being chosen for the VP spot is a huge deal. But at the end of the day, her positions on very nealy every social issue are so far removed from mine, that I could not vote of a ticket that has her on it.

[sesame]

"We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents", says Sarah Palin. Her 17 year old daughter Bristol will keep the baby and marry the father.

"Life happens", says McCain's aide, Schmidt. "As parents, [Palins] love their daughter unconditionally and are going to support their daughter", he adds.

"People's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits", says Obama.

I say, its going to affect Palin bothways. Once it has become known, abortion is out of the question. Bristol is in her seventh month of advanced pregnancy and "Republicans dont abort". Its quite scandalous to have a teenage daughter pregnant in the most unappropriate time, for starters. But then again, this can be turned to an advantage. People will sympathise and show them as down to earth ;), "they are going through the same hazzards as we all do!" And it will also draw public attention, which is most important. A scandal can make you famous!! You've got something extra than your opponent has.

[Talvenada]

I wish that were me. No, I just think she looks both beautiful and outrageous. I do like big hair though. Not necessarily that big, but I think a great hairstyle is sexy, and much more interesting than the straight, flat-as-you-can hairstyles that women have been wearing for the past too many years. They keep saying big hair is back. Where??!

I think I have a pretty face, and like wearing longish brunette hair styled nicely. No, I don't have any pics, maybe some day.

TRACY,

I wasn't going to ask you for a picture, because a lot of guys don't realize that request can make some people uncomfortable.

[TracyCoxx]

US vice-precidency candidate from the Republican Camp uses her daughter's pregnancy as a masterstroke in the game of politics. Sarah Pelin as the player of games, why am I not surprised?

Because you always expect the worst from a republican candidate?

I think her daughter's pregnancy is a non-issue. Her funfamentalist xtian ways and her desire to squeeze every last drop of oil out of this country until it's a wasteland are much more worrisome.

How on earth would her daughter's pregnancy affect me?

[sesame]

I think her daughter's pregnancy is a non-issue. Her funfamentalist xtian ways and her desire to squeeze every last drop of oil out of this country until it's a wasteland are much more worrisome.Ah, some kind of rapport at last!

[Ogryn1313]

I have to give Obama credit. He impressed me by getting onto this Palin's pregnant daughter thing quickly and telling folks basically "it's not important, it's not our business, irrelevant to the campaign."

And I find it ironic that the Dems aren't running with it. Thus far, in the political arena few give a shit. As it should be. So a 17 year old is knocked up? Has little bearing on her mother's abilities as a politicians. Oh some can say it reflects on Palin's values. But Palin isn't pregnant. It's all on her daughter.

So what is ironic is who is making a big deal out of it: two groups.

The media. They're running with it. Why make a big deal of it if the Dems aren't?
And the far left. This is the people who think teens ought to get abortions if they want. The people who tend to embrace things traditionally not considered moral and socially acceptable. You'd think they'd embrace a 17 year old who is knocked up. Yet they're making a ruckus only because it's a Republican issue they can use to attack the party.

Now, we all know some folks look down on teen pregnancy and we know why. It's all about social norms, morals, ethics, etc. The left ought to like this since it falls into their progressive agenda. But we all know it doesn't mean shit at all.

My town...we got little girls at 14 making babies. Most have 2 or three kids before they are out of high school. If they want to make a big deal about a pregnant teen then please...come here and do it for crying out loud! We're knee deep in babies here!

[CreativeMind]

"...aside from the fact that electing the American President is actually too important a matter to leave to Americans"

Huh? I'm sort of lost or confused by this comment, Hank.
It's too important a matter to leave to Americans?

If it shouldn't be up to us (since it is our country),
who should it be left up to?

[Ogryn1313]

The day Americans give up their decision making to foreigners is the day this is no longer America and just another lamb in the EU or Useless Nations.

[CreativeMind]

Well, with a net worth of 1.3 million, he's not the average chap, but compare that to McCain with 200 million and you can see who's closer.

Well, that's not actually true. It's all a financial shell game, as you would expect with people having money. For example, John McCain isn't worth $200 million -- however his WIFE is, but even there it's money she inherited from a beer distributorship that her father started. Plus, it's not $200 million -- it's actually HALF that. Her wealth is estimated to be $100 million (though obviously that's still a lot). McCain himself makes 169,000 a year for being in the Senate and 56,000 a year as his Navy pension. So technically the argument could be made that he only makes $220,000 a year.

As for Obama, sorry, but I won't cry any tears for him either since his finances are a real shell game in motion. The public disclosure for him is that his NET worth is $1.3 million -- but that's a number you get ONLY if you start deducting money from things that he owns or has equity in and start deducting mortgage payments, etc. So he's actually far RICHER than that number lets on. Plus, let's assume he gets elected. Look at the Clintons. They claimed to be "average people" when they got into office, but within 10 years of leaving office...between public appearances, speeches, book deals, etc...they're now worth over $100 million too -- which means Hillary is every bit a rich as McCain. And if Obama wins, within a few years of being out of office he stands an excellent chance of joining the $100 million club too.

My problem with talking about finances is that it's not fair to compare them. The McCain fortune was built up over decades of time, versus Obamas money is now just starting to pile up. So it's an apples and oranges kind of things. Plus, the Obamas like to say they're "only worth 1.3 million" -- but the truth is they own a $2 million dollar home, but they deduct the mortgage payments to drive the number down to 1.3. At the same time, if you are going to stick Cindy McCain's fortune onto John McCain, then fair is fair and you have to do the same for Michelle Obama. Up until the start of the summer, Michelle Obama was raking in $320,000 a year for a PART TIME job as a "community affairs consultant" attached to the University of Chicago. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't remember the last time I worked a PART TIME job and it paid 300 thousand a year! So let's be honest -- they're not hurting in the least.

I saw a talk show host interviewed on TV recently and they really summed it up perfectly by noting: "Look, I realize it's election time and people will choose sides. But for once could we just cut the crap? The truth is NONE of these people are "average Americans" like you or me. As much as politicians love to say "I'm one of you," the truth is by the time you get to THIS level of running for office...such as President...you either came from a very privileged family and background OR you made some SERIOUS money along the way and NOW you're pretty freakin' rich. Either way, you're NOT like the average person."

To be honest, the one who made me laugh the most over this was John Kerry when he ran for President 4 years ago. I seriously cracked up every time Kerry would say in a speech that he was just an "average" American like me or you given that his personal worth at the time (by being married to heiressTeresa Heinz) was something like 3/4 of BILLION dollars.

So a tip to the guys here: get out more and find yourselves a sexy sugar mama. Or should I say a sexy sugar TS mama!

Hmm...I wonder what Areeya is worth? ;)

[hankhavelock]

The day Americans give up their decision making to foreigners is the day this is no longer America and just another lamb in the EU or Useless Nations.

wouw! hot shit, mano! as spoken by a true neocon... ;-) that's the stuff, george bush and john mccain are truly made of...:drool:

[Ogryn1313]

Such bullshit. I'm not a neocon. What I said I said out of a sense of patriotism. Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid. That's the borderless world concept. What if Americans made the decisions for Brits? Frenchies? Canadians? How'd they like it if they didn't have say so over who becomes their leaders and government officials? Or couldn't have any say over things like taxes and property rights?

If you're going to reply to me with such a jackassed comment and insult don't bother. Anyone of any nation with half a mind would agree with me. You don't let foreigners elect your officials.

[TracyCoxx]

Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid.

You tell'em Ogryn. I'd really like to hear hanghaveock explain why the US leaders should be chosen by other countries? Is that the way it's done in Indonesia?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

If I was walking in the woods and I met McCain and Palin, I would slit their throat and throw them in a ditch.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

See? They don't even know. Google Obama and socialism.

Sister, you need to learn what socialism is. You have no fucking clue.

[Ogryn1313]

If I was walking in the woods and I met McCain and Palin, I would slit their throat and throw them in a ditch.

That pretty much sums it up for me.


Well, aren't you just the informed and socially concerned voter? Comments like that really diminish any argument for or against a thing. Shame on you. Shame shame shame Anna..everyone know's your name.:no:

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Well, aren't you just the informed and socially concerned voter? Comments like that really diminish any argument for or against a thing. Shame on you. Shame shame shame Anna..everyone know's your name.:no:

You know what, I wasn't putting forward any argument, I was stating the conclusion I have reached. I am well informed as to McCain and Palin, and that's what had led me to this conclusion.


If you met Palin in the woods one day, what do you think she would think of you? You're a fag, deny it all you like, but you like dick, and that makes you a faggot, and Palin doesn't like faggots. I'm glad I'm not American, I don't have the risk of this fucked up bitch taking away my rights.

[Ogryn1313]

Aww. You're so mean calling me names. Sniff...faggot. So what if she thought of me as a fag? I don't care of the ignorance of others and I will condemn people for their flaws. She could call me a fag. But if I see value in here just the same I'll respect it.

I find it hilarious outsiders think they know anything about rights in the nations. Let alone how this nation works. Most foreigners who run their mouths don't have much of an informed opinion. Even the ones who trot out "well I've visited America."

I've been here all my life. And I have the same rights I did when I was born today. I've not lost a single one. It doesn't matter who is in the White House or not. Why? It's not the president who has the most impact on our day to day lives in America. Not at all. So get it right Anna. It's fucking Congress who has the most daily impact. They're the ones who make the decisions that effect the citizens most. Not the president. But I don't think you'd be able to see this through your bias tinted glasses.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Such bullshit. I'm not a neocon. What I said I said out of a sense of patriotism. Since when should one nation allow the people of another to make decisions for it? That's stupid. That's the borderless world concept. What if Americans made the decisions for Brits? Frenchies? Canadians? How'd they like it if they didn't have say so over who becomes their leaders and government officials? Or couldn't have any say over things like taxes and property rights?

If you're going to reply to me with such a jackassed comment and insult don't bother. Anyone of any nation with half a mind would agree with me. You don't let foreigners elect your officials.

Yea, imagine if the US decided that it was going to make decisions for Iraqis, or Afghanis!


<Alternate>

Yes, only the people who are in the nation controlled by a government should vote for that government. So only Americans, Iraqis and Afganis should vote for the US president.

[Ogryn1313]

The Iraqis elected their own leaders you know. Made possible by removing Saddam Hussein. And, it seems the Iraqi's were quite happy being able to elect their own leaders. So much so that Kurds in the north even ran a television ad thanking the Americans for making it possible.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

The Iraqis elected their own leaders you know. Made possible by removing Saddam Hussein. And, it seems the Iraqi's were quite happy being able to elect their own leaders. So much so that Kurds in the north even ran a television ad thanking the Americans for making it possible.

The Iraqi parliament voted that the US should leave, the US are still there, that pretty much sums it up.

[TracyCoxx]

Sister, you need to learn what socialism is. You have no fucking clue.
This from someone who would slit someone's throat and toss them in a ditch.

[TracyCoxx]

If you met Palin in the woods one day, what do you think she would think of you? You're a fag, deny it all you like, but you like dick, and that makes you a faggot, and Palin doesn't like faggots. I'm glad I'm not American, I don't have the risk of this fucked up bitch taking away my rights.

She's against gay marriage. You mean you have that right in your country? You're in the UK. My source says Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain, and South Africa allow it. It may be outdated though. If you don't have that right in the UK, then I'm not sure how the right to gay marriage can be taken away from you.

[TracyCoxx]

Yea, imagine if the US decided that it was going to make decisions for Iraqis, or Afghanis!

Wasn't it the UK that redefined the borders of countries in the Mid East? That turned out real well.

[Ogryn1313]

The Iraqi parliament voted that the US should leave, the US are still there, that pretty much sums it up.

Because if we left precipitously Iraq would be in full civil war and likely invaded by Iran. Or at the lest Iran would install a puppet regime.

That's the typical comeback of a person who refuses to look at the big picture but rather complain about certain points.


On my other site people like you are in the majority. You might like it there. And in particular all the Brits do as you do. Every Brit I've ever encountered seems to have some kind of ignrance driven obsession with hating this nation. I've yet to find one Brit say one positive thing about America.

And I'm left to conclude it is because of two possible things: Brits are, by nature arrogant assholes who love to bitch and moan. Or, and I do hope this one is the reason, the people of England are bashing the United States to mask their insecurities about their own less than perfect nation. After all, it isn't as if England has a spotless and unblemished history and has always been the paragon of a virtuous nation. And as Tracy pointed out, England has had more effect on the Middle East than America.

So, could it be that the people of England, who bitch about America while ignoring their own "fuckeduppery" simply being insecure? Makes them feel a little better about their smile island nation?

Why is America having more effect now? Because America has more power, wealth and influence. It's no wonder when the shit hits the fan nations call on America long and pass on England.

Then consider history. England is sore they lost their colonies. And who stood to benefit the most from the Industrial Revolution? Not England. America. Because we made this our country. England lost its superpower status. And so when the Industrial Revolution happened all the vast resources of this nation were ours. England, on the other hand, by this time was a shrinking empire who depended, and still does, on trade from other nations to survive. England lacks the agricultural capacity and manufacturing capacity to be self-sufficient. Whereas, if America so desired, we could sever ties with other nations in the form of trade and be able to survive on our own resources with the exception of oil.

In other words: America is the big dog on the porch while England is the little waiting for scraps.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Because if we left precipitously Iraq would be in full civil war and likely invaded by Iran. Or at the lest Iran would install a puppet regime.

You are an American, what business do you have in telling the Iraqis what is good for them?

[Ogryn1313]

Can't you do any better than that?

What business did the Brits have of forcing opium on China during the Opium War? Invading other countries and then colonizing them? And many other historical blemishes. How about criticizing merry old England for a spell?

You're proving me right, in regards to my previous comment. Even more so with useless equivalency.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

The answer is of course none. You are the one using useless equivalence. Your only argument in defence of the US is Britain did it first. When you're using the British empire as your justification, you're really getting desperate.

I'm against all imperialism, I'm not the one blowing smoke up the ass of my government, I hate them, I'm not looking to defend them.

You can carry your white man's burden alone, you will get no help from me.

[sesame]

Anna, I was expecting more from you. Fiery, eloquent, geeky Anna being slammed by 2 "patriotic" americans who are blind to all atrocities done by USA!!! All the bossing, tampering, exploiting by the US are justified by profitable "peacekeeping"! Baah!

[sesame]

In other words: America is the big dog on the porch Ogryn, just because US is the big dog in the worldscape now, is it justified for you to bash, bite, bully and destroy all others?
The US is a nervous wreck. Constantly in fear of losing control.
So it had to destroy Vietnam, USSR, Afghanistan, Iraq... whatever is next on the list.

[Bionca]

Perhaps the Brits you see posting on the Internet have a common "feel" to them because England (and France, and Holand, and Spain) have a history of fucking up foreign countries for their particular benefit, having that blow up in their face, and causing tremendous harm to actual living breathing people and being called out for it.

It's also about perception - What you may see as the US going in and helping another country remain stable is seen by others as America acting as like a bully on the world stage. Since no action taken in a foreign country is ever fully altruistic, having motives questioned by our allies keeps the "big dogs" in check.

As far as McCain/Palin and their social politics....

Lots of Conservative gays and trans*people and the guys who like us love to talk about how their main focus is foreign policy and/or economics. Well bully for you. The Real ID Act the McCain and Palin support will make it EVER HARDER for pre and non- op gals to get a basic job that doesn't involve sex work. Do you get the economic impact of that?

The current Patriot Act (I love how Conservatives are so dismissive about how no actual Americans have anything to worry about with the PA) outs Transfolks every time they get a non-sex work job, with a recommendation (initially an INSTRUCTION) to fire/not hire that person because their gender documentation doesn't match, thus they are a security risk. Again, Conservative economics on a micro hitting me in the purse level.

[Be_my_nude]

So - ignoring all the somewhat petty imperialist / anti-imperialist sniping rampant in the first half of this thread, it seems to me that projected image supported by selective ' facts ' is the principal Driver of Western politicians today, not any true or honest virtues that they may possess. ' Honest Abe ' is an anachronism and a fantasy in today political world. So we get more and more headline-grabbers, ambtious politicians who ' talk the good talk', but when it comes to ' walking the good walk ' they are very much found wanting and only cover up their own incompetence and ineptitude by the reckless compounding of promises upon promises, none or few of which are delivered.
Tony Blair in the UK of the ready smile and bountiful bag of political hot air is a prime example, and those who have followed him without the advantage of charm even more so. What little I know of Obama makes him equally as unknown a quantity. IF he gets elected he will a hard job to maintain integrity with progress. But what do we Brits know except what we read in the Gutter Press and in Forums ?

[Marine_N41_432]

Politically-aware women make me uneasy. Fanatical ones make me panic. And why do politicians always present themselves as right by virtue of their appointment ? Not sure that comparisons between the economic / exploitative empires of Britain and America serve any real purpose in this thread. That way I agree with Bella. But Bionca has some very valid points too.

[hankhavelock]

You tell'em Ogryn. I'd really like to hear hanghaveock explain why the US leaders should be chosen by other countries? Is that the way it's done in Indonesia?

Please, guys and girls, calm down a bit... no need to scream outta ur hat here... I was merely trying to be funny and friendly.

But you missed the point and apparently, American socalled PATRIOTISM (by defined by George Bush and his hoods) is becoming as "holy" as muslim "patriotism". And that is basicly why, it's too dangerous to leave the election of the American president to the American people... ;-)

Oh well, the Chinese have awoken and will make this their century anyways.

But be PROUD! And just send MacDonalds and your marines... and if we don't bend to your PATRIOTIC way, then just send the missiles... you always wanted isolationalism... so why not take it to the limit and kill off anything that cannot be labelled as God's own American PATRIOTISM?

These are the policies that Barack Obama will not follow...

[just102]

we desperately need a third party

as far as Obama and McCain go I really think McCain is the lesser of the two idiots

[TracyCoxx]

But be PROUD! And just send MacDonalds and your marines... and if we don't bend to your PATRIOTIC way, then just send the missiles... you always wanted isolationalism... so why not take it to the limit and kill off anything that cannot be labelled as God's own American PATRIOTISM?

These are the policies that Barack Obama will not follow...

I can think of dozens of countries who do not "bend to our patriotic way", and no missiles are being sent. What countries are you talking about who we've fired missiles at because they simply did not "bend to our patriotic way"? And don't say Iraq because if you've studied the situation at all you'll know there's a bit more to it than not bending to our patriotic way.

[TracyCoxx]

we desperately need a third party

as far as Obama and McCain go I really think McCain is the lesser of the two idiots

Unfortunately that will usually not work. The vote will usually be split among the top 2 candidates and the 3rd choice will get the majority of the votes.

[Ogryn1313]

Perhaps the Brits you see posting on the Internet have a common "feel" to them because England (and France, and Holand, and Spain) have a history of fucking up foreign countries for their particular benefit, having that blow up in their face, and causing tremendous harm to actual living breathing people and being called out for it.

It's also about perception - What you may see as the US going in and helping another country remain stable is seen by others as America acting as like a bully on the world stage. Since no action taken in a foreign country is ever fully altruistic, having motives questioned by our allies keeps the "big dogs" in check.

As far as McCain/Palin and their social politics....

Lots of Conservative gays and trans*people and the guys who like us love to talk about how their main focus is foreign policy and/or economics. Well bully for you. The Real ID Act the McCain and Palin support will make it EVER HARDER for pre and non- op gals to get a basic job that doesn't involve sex work. Do you get the economic impact of that?

The current Patriot Act (I love how Conservatives are so dismissive about how no actual Americans have anything to worry about with the PA) outs Transfolks every time they get a non-sex work job, with a recommendation (initially an INSTRUCTION) to fire/not hire that person because their gender documentation doesn't match, thus they are a security risk. Again, Conservative economics on a micro hitting me in the purse level.


I'm conservative and Republican in case you've not noticed by now. But surely nobody would lump me in with the right wing element. Your generalizations don't acknowledge those like me. And there's more than you'd think Bionca. I assure you my main focus isn't foreign policy in the least. I've stated I want this nation to return to an isolationist stance and have little dealings with foreign nations friend and foe alike.

As for my focus on the economy. I'll be honest: I don't give a shit about it. See, I live in one of the poorest regions in America. When the national economy is booming guess what? Appalachia is still poor! The average household income is about 6,000 to 13,000 a year. It's always been this way for the mountain folk and always will. As such, I don't give a damn about the economy in the rest of the nation.

The Patriot Act? I'm simple minded about it. It's not harmed my life. I've not lost a single right since 9/11. People must adjust to the demands and dangers of the times. We did in WW2 without much complaint. I see what's bad about the act but I don't care. Because law abiding legal citizens don't suffer under it.

Trans issues? Well, I really don't know much about their issues. I'll need to research the Real ID Act. If it presents inequality for the trans community then I will not approve of it. But if it doesn't unduly burden them any more so than everything else I can't really complain. See, although I support minorities and equality I keep my eye on the greater good: the majority. So, I'm all for equality and fairness for everyone. But if at any point the good for the minority begins stripping away at the rights of the whole I oppose it. The majority rules. The majority comes first. Ideally, everyone should have a fair break. And please never doubt me on this. But I'll not compromise what is best for all just to please the few, no matter who they are. My people are a minority of sorts. We could use Uncle Sam's help. Financially mainly. But we're a minority. I would not expect the majority to be diminished at our expense.

Furthermore, this may offend people, but one thing I oppose about the idea of national healthcare is that taxpayers would be paying for everyone. This means the gender reassignment surgery as well. Please, I don't want you Bionca, or any other person, to think I oppose your rights. But to me, paying for this isn't fair to the tax payer. Nor would be the taxpayer paying for my illness if I got lung cancer because I do indeed smoke like a freight train. The problem with national healthcare is it would be easily abused. Before you know it people who wanted plastic surgery would be having taxpayers paying for it. And they'd use some kind of depression angle to justify it. I'm of the mind that national healthcare should only be for the usual things: injuries from accident, disorders, disease, medicine, etc, not elective surgeries.

Anyway, I hope I've not offended you nor made an enemy out of you for my views. I support anyone within reason. But as I said, my loyalty lies with the majority. That is, to me, what democracy is.

[hankhavelock]

And don't say Iraq because if you've studied the situation at all you'll know there's a bit more to it than not bending to our patriotic way.

There certainly is... a sinister amount of a bit more... ;-)

[hankhavelock]

I'm conservative and Republican in case you've not noticed by now...

Indeed you are, my good friend :-) So here's a special treat for you... ;-)

I admit it... (s)he's a lill conservative HOTTIE.. one starts to understand why George Bush is always smiling and squint-eyed when he appears in public... he has this suprema Goddess on his lap every day...

Peace, my man!

Barack

PS: All Power to the Black Panthers!

[jimnaseum]

If I were a Republican I'd have Republican views too. Bush has not only spent or stolen every cent Clinton saved, he's borrowed our future from China and blown that too. You can thank George Bush, millionaire brat oil businessman, for electing the first black man president.
Obama will be the best thing that has ever happened to the American middle class. He has the energy and vision to do it. It has been his direction from Day one.
the 2006 elections showed that the republican's time is up. take that to the bank.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

You can thank George Bush, millionaire brat oil businessman, for electing the first black man president.

Woah, don't count your chickens!

Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter.

Then recall that half of them are dumber than that!

EEK!

[jimnaseum]

God help us all, Anna
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=511_1220605235

[TracyCoxx]

Woah, don't count your chickens!

Never underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter.

Then recall that half of them are dumber than that!

EEK!

You've gone too far and I've had about enough of your crap. Where do you get off insulting us like that?

[Ogryn1313]

It astonishes me how blind people are to history. Clinton wasn't the economic miracle worker. Our economy was mainly driven by a specific trend at the time. And though we had good times and more money, he left us in a recession. It spiraled from there.

As for Ann, I chalk Anna up to being just another spiteful and decidedly biased European who can only bash America, often will ill informed opinions and little knowledge of the issues and facts. And, with the insults and hate Anna diminishes the value of any intelligent conversation. Very impressive for those oh so superior Europeans who are so much more intellectual and enlightened than we horrible Americans.

A pity we have no ignore feature here.

[SSL]

A pity we have no ignore feature here.
http://forum.transladyboy.com/profile.php?do=editlist

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

You've gone too far and I've had about enough of your crap. Where do you get off insulting us like that?

Sorry, I just calls em like I sees em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDIsOqq6yko



I never said the average voter was any smarter anywhere else mind.

[buuren11]

Anything is better than Bush

[Ogryn1313]

http://forum.transladyboy.com/profile.php?do=editlist

Oh, well then...I'll bear this in mind.

[TracyCoxx]

Sorry, I just calls em like I sees em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDIsOqq6yko

Yeah me too LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512087/Challenge-Churchill-One-think-Winnie-didnt-exist-Sherlock-Holmes-did.html

I never said the average voter was any smarter anywhere else mind.

Look, there's stupid people in every country. Trust me, I have no respect for the growing bible thumping masses in my country. But for the most part this country doesn't suck. I'm just tired of all the anti-america crap going on when the actions America took that everyone is griping about were unanimously endorsed by the UN.

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and
Anything is better than Bush

who have no grasp of the big picture.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.



You know there is a difference between the government party and the opposition party don't you?

The government party is in direct control of hte intelligence services, the president has pretty much hte highest security clearance there is, he can see everything. The opposition party only sees what is released to them by the security services controlled by the government party.

[TracyCoxx]

You know there is a difference between the government party and the opposition party don't you?

The government party is in direct control of hte intelligence services, the president has pretty much hte highest security clearance there is, he can see everything. The opposition party only sees what is released to them by the security services controlled by the government party.

You know the opposition party was in power when many of the quotes above were made don't you?

When Clinton was president he also had direct access to intelligence services. Hillary also spoke of intelligence reports that she has seen. Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Sandy Berger also had access. Go back and read the quotes. Those were the assessments of the intelligence community that Bush inherited.

[Ogryn1313]

Yeah me too LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512087/Challenge-Churchill-One-think-Winnie-didnt-exist-Sherlock-Holmes-did.html



Look, there's stupid people in every country. Trust me, I have no respect for the growing bible thumping masses in my country. But for the most part this country doesn't suck. I'm just tired of all the anti-america crap going on when the actions America took that everyone is griping about were unanimously endorsed by the UN.

There is plenty of revisionist history going on in the US too. I'm sure you've heard all the 'Bush Lied about Iraqi WMD' BS.

The democrats were agreeing on the WMD intelligence up until the 2004 elections. Then they conveniently found fault in the intelligence and it all suddenly became Bush's fault.




And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and


who have no grasp of the big picture.

Clearly you have little knowledge of how the American government works. It is a two party system and there's always one in control until the other claims control. The control is in Congress, not the Presidency. It is not as if when a new president takes office all the work, intelligence, and other things from the previous administration are discarded.

Quite the contrary. Each successive president inherits everything from the previous. They take on their responsibilities, unfinished business, crisis, war, recession, whatever. And while in office they add to it.

See, it is a growing body work building on the past. And in some cases undoing the past. The point being that the man in office is essentially a caretaker. Picks up where the other left off. Continues the work or goes in a new direction.

The man in office is powerful. And much responsibility is on his shoulders. "The buck stops here." Problem is, in any government everyone wants to pass the buck.

What you fail to understand is that it is Congress that has more direct influence and actual impact on the daily lives of Americans. Congress is where the true power is. It is easy to pass the buck and blame on the president. Especially since he does have real power. But often, his failings stem from Congress, as Congress is in a perpetual feud with itself for control. Democrats want it. They get it. Reps want it. They get. Whoever is in office often has to wade through lots of red tape. Congress is the real problem in America. Especially the current one.

You, have much to learn about how this government works. Yet you don't want to learn. You want to complain. And the more you do the more evident your ignorance of the issues is apparent.

[hankhavelock]

Ogryn, my friend, I allowed my self to move your answer from another thread to this one, where I believe it's more appropriate if you don't mind.

You wrote:

I couldn't agree more with you.

Aside from only one thing:

Obama.

I'm of the opinion social change must come slowly. It cannot be rushed because of loose ends and the impact it has on people. America is an extremely diverse nation. We have every type of person imaginable and ever difference imaginable found here. Perhaps more so than most nations. And it is always a battle. I believe in serving the whole, the greater good, thus the majority rules. Minorities are a secondary consideration. This does not mean I support oppressing them or denying them their fair treatment and rights. Only that any sweeping change in our society should be carefully thought out, all options and ramifications considered and then eased into. Rapid and sudden change creates unforeseen issues.

And this is my problem with the far left and Obama's of the world.

The Europeans can sit and smugly condemn my nation for being backwards and less socially progressive. Europeans are exceptionally arrogant. Yet they forget something important:

European nations are older than America. They have had the benefit of several hundred years of time to "perfect" themselves. America is a baby in comparison.

Because I believe such change requires time, logically it stands to reason America has not had the time to "perfect" itself as Europe. It's relative to how old a nation is. And the problem with the champions of this kind of change in America are immature so to speak. They often just see a problem and immediately think up a solution then they want to make this solution happen. They don't care if it steps on other groups or has effects on the equality of all in terms of rights and civil liberties. They are rash and foolhardy.

Perhaps they're hearts on in the right place. But they need to slow down and consider everything. I'll cite Obama wanting to withdraw the troops in Iraq quickly. He has failed to show he has fully thought out all considerations and possible consequences. Liberals are slightly better at this kind of change as they tend to be more logical and fair than the far left who pretty much are hot headed, overly passionate dreamers who just rush into things.

So, if you can look at a European nation and American nation in terms of a whole (let's say for the sake of it all of the nation is one person) and compare age and experience, then clearly America needs to do some growing up. But we all know the dangers of growing up too quickly.

This is how I disagree with you. Everything else you said I agree with entirely.

I reply:


This is a matter of wanting evolutionary or revolutionary change - I believe that in the case of Obama, this is STILL evolutionary change... but it is a matter that will force Americans to look deeply into their democratic hearts and find in them selves the truth they want. Isn't it finally time, that we move a bit forward - even in steps that for some may seem inappropriately large?

Shifts of paradigms are always hurtful for those who strenouosly oppose them. George Bush and his administration are the last of a generation of thinking that goes back to the Civil War and an automated way to view American patriotism as the kind of patriotism decided by raw power and a fixed set of rules as to what is right and wrong.

The world has changed - not necessarily the fundamentals of right and wrong in a democratic sense - but in the way that other issues are now coming up that we didn't before have to deal with. In this regard the old guard is no longer useful. They are so rooted in their old school mindset that their solutions are wrong for a new world.

You mention Europe - and yes, European history goes milliennia further back than Caucasian and Afro American history. How ever, let us not kid ourselves here, American morale is rooted in European tradition and now luckily with an AfroAmerican touch. The basics are not very different. That's why America and Europe are for ever connected and will probably not be able to exist without each other.

But the religious right and their out-of-date ways cannot be something that you seriously defend as morally right. And there are no other ways to bring them forward and out of their holes than to force them them to scrutinize the moral of what they are preaching. Had it been communists or muslims, you would agree with me - now it's your fellow Americans, but some of them are as backwards as the illeterates of some village in Iran...

I believe we can objectively talk about right or wrong - and I believe we can fairly accuse folks of opposing new thinking because of their angst of what this new thinking may bring with it.

I love America, I have always defended America, but in this love is also an obligation to oppose stupidity, which is the fact of the last administration. George Bush, his wife and his administration have hurt not only American but western credibility tremendously due to a failed policy pressed upon American allies with force.

It will take years to fix that - but what I experience is a joy about Barack Obama and thus a way for America (and the rest of the west) to reestablish prudent leadership and credibility in a world that is somewhat more complicated than in the days of good old Ronald Reagan, whom I - even as a bleeding heart liberal - see as one of the most important presidents in the history of your nation EVER!

That's why I believe that change is needed - if it is only a symbol of change. Barack Obama can deliver that and is light years ahead in his thinking than John McCain - btw, I actually LIKE John McCain. He's just not the the right man for the job at the time. One could hope that he'd got elected 8 years ago. Then the world would most likely have nbeen better off. He had his kicks.. now we need more dramatic change!

Peace!

H

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

You know the opposition party was in power when many of the quotes above were made don't you?

When Clinton was president he also had direct access to intelligence services. Hillary also spoke of intelligence reports that she has seen. Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Sandy Berger also had access. Go back and read the quotes. Those were the assessments of the intelligence community that Bush inherited.

So what you are saying is that saddam could not possibly have got rid of his weapons after 4 years of UN inspections, and no new intelligence was gathered during that time.

Right, you're making more sense by the second.

[TracyCoxx]

So what you are saying is that saddam could not possibly have got rid of his weapons after 4 years of UN inspections, and no new intelligence was gathered during that time.

Right, you're making more sense by the second.

Try and follow the thread of the conversation.

And what do we say today? It's aaaaaaaall Bush's fault. Forgive me if I don't put much stock in people like yourself and burren11 who have no grasp of the big picture.

There has been NOTHING to show that all those people quoted above weren't wrong either. And it's not just up until the end of Clinton's term. AGAIN go look at the quotes. You can see democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD right up until 2002/2003. The fact is most everyone who had access to the intelligence data drew the conclusion that Iraq had WMD, yet Bush is singled out as the lone liar.

[twistedone]

I'm writing in the Tasmanian Devil. The cartoon character. Perhaps "Yosemite Sam" as he VP.:lol:

[jimnaseum]

Tracy Darling, I'm All-American but that war is Bush's war period. He claimed Mission Accomplished in his little National Guard flight suit his Dad bought him, and he deserves all the blame for it's outcome.
Now then, if this thread is going to cum to "blows" I wanna see some pictures.

All kidding aside, in about 20 years I predict there will be a book on the Bush Presidency that will be a real page turner, once some key players start dying off. From hanging chads to 9-11, to Osama Bin Laden and Abromoff, (sic?) Cheney, think of all the stuff we don't even know about. It's really scary that in the nukuler age we got these guys running around in charge. Sarah Palin's going to get PMS and nuke France.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

You can see democrats asserting that Iraq had WMD right up until 2002/2003.


Oh, after they were out of power and didn't have access to intelligence except what Bush and co released to them...

[TracyCoxx]

Oh, after they were out of power and didn't have access to intelligence except what Bush and co released to them...

They? The democrats I referred to were IN power. As Ogryn1313 says, congress has the power. They control the budget. They approve presidential appointments. I don't suppose you realize the head of the CIA, George Tenet, during this time (2002) was appointed by Bill Clinton. He was kept on by the Bush administration until 2004 when all this WMD shit hit the fan.

So you're telling me that H. Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry and Carl Levin had no up to date information when they made those statements? John Edwards and Carl Levin were on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2001-2002 btw. But you're telling me these people did not have access to up to date information? Do you want to keep going with this rectal extrapolation of yours or do you want to take a while to actually research what you're talking about?

[Ogryn1313]

The Democrats are in control. They made a lot of promises to reverse all the "damage" Bush has done in his 8 years as president in the "First 100 Hours." In their first 100 hours the only thing of significance they passed was a new set of rules governing how Congress would conduct business. Which, suspiciously, passed virtually unanimously. And, long after this, they've done very little. They're seen as "do nothing" Congress. So much for their lofty promises to change America. Obama, if he wins...I suspect will repeat their vast accomplishments.

Anna is most likely getting her information from biased sources like the BBC or any number of "reputable" online blogs and far left sites. It's blatantly obvious Anna has little knowledge of this matter and only opinion.

[Ogryn1313]

Anna, you do know many of those Dems you defend so heavily were members of various intelligence committees and such don't you? Like John Kerry, though he rarely attended the meetings. Many of them have access to the same intel the president has. Much of which was created during Clinton's administration by a unit dedicated to Bin Laden watching. It's not as if once a president is out of office all the intel is null and void and new intel must be made.

[bobbsie]

I couldn't agree more with you.

Aside from only one thing:

Obama.

I'm of the opinion social change must come slowly. It cannot be rushed because of loose ends and the impact it has on people. America is an extremely diverse nation. We have every type of person imaginable and ever difference imaginable found here. Perhaps more so than most nations. And it is always a battle. I believe in serving the whole, the greater good, thus the majority rules. Minorities are a secondary consideration. This does not mean I support oppressing them or denying them their fair treatment and rights. Only that any sweeping change in our society should be carefully thought out, all options and ramifications considered and then eased into. Rapid and sudden change creates unforeseen issues.

And this is my problem with the far left and Obama's of the world.

The Europeans can sit and smugly condemn my nation for being backwards and less socially progressive. Europeans are exceptionally arrogant. Yet they forget something important:

European nations are older than America. They have had the benefit of several hundred years of time to "perfect" themselves. America is a baby in comparison.

Because I believe such change requires time, logically it stands to reason America has not had the time to "perfect" itself as Europe. It's relative to how old a nation is. And the problem with the champions of this kind of change in America are immature so to speak. They often just see a problem and immediately think up a solution then they want to make this solution happen. They don't care if it steps on other groups or has effects on the equality of all in terms of rights and civil liberties. They are rash and foolhardy.

Perhaps they're hearts on in the right place. But they need to slow down and consider everything. I'll cite Obama wanting to withdraw the troops in Iraq quickly. He has failed to show he has fully thought out all considerations and possible consequences. Liberals are slightly better at this kind of change as they tend to be more logical and fair than the far left who pretty much are hot headed, overly passionate dreamers who just rush into things.

So, if you can look at a European nation and American nation in terms of a whole (let's say for the sake of it all of the nation is one person) and compare age and experience, then clearly America needs to do some growing up. But we all know the dangers of growing up too quickly.

This is how I disagree with you. Everything else you said I agree with entirely.

Great post! I agree that there are risks with a society growing up too quickly. It is my belief that freedoms and liberal values require a mature and flexible society or things do start to fall apart. I also think people get frightened when social structures change too quickly. Although I would personally argue that there are a lot of other factors that influence social change in a society other than age of a nation. For example, it seems like America has a much larger and more conservative Christian population than many other western nations. Maybe i'm generalising! Still, great post

[Ogryn1313]

Nations are much like children in this regard. Only children can count on the wisdom and guidance of good parents whereas nations have no parents. Thomas Paine's thoughts on this come to mind.

And yes, there are many other factors. As it always is in all things. Only most folks refuse to see all the factors.

Believe it or not, I am a conservative.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

They? The democrats I referred to were IN power. As Ogryn1313 says, congress has the power. They control the budget. They approve presidential appointments. I don't suppose you realize the head of the CIA, George Tenet, during this time (2002) was appointed by Bill Clinton. He was kept on by the Bush administration until 2004 when all this WMD shit hit the fan.

So you're telling me that H. Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry and Carl Levin had no up to date information when they made those statements? John Edwards and Carl Levin were on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2001-2002 btw. But you're telling me these people did not have access to up to date information? Do you want to keep going with this rectal extrapolation of yours or do you want to take a while to actually research what you're talking about?

Oh so nothing could possibly change from 2002-2004?

[Bionca]

Ogryn - While I respect what you have said, and I'm glad for you keeping a civil tone in all your posts. I must point out that maintaining the rights and privileges of the majority, and placing the needs of a majority in favor of and at the expense of a minority results in "Tyrrany of the Majority".

While you personally may be against treating different groups poorly, many who share your views do not. Or even worse, fail to see how not supporting issues like Gay marriage are harmful to actual people by making it difficult to access protections and services provided for hetro-married couples. Saying "what they do on their time doesn't bother me, but marriage is sacred".

Issues like restricting access to bathrooms by transwomen in Colorado and recently Maryland. Having an expensive and "cosmetic" surgery needed to change documentation for one's sex assignment. Not having sexual orientation or gender identity/expession protected on a national level. All of these directly impact the real lives of actual people, not nameless "minority groups". The majoity, by virtue of being the majotity gets all the cookies/perks/rights/privliges. When it comes down to an issue of someone's comfort level or emotional squick over an issue and someone losing their house because their 20 year lesbian partner died without a will, or a 20 y/o transwoman who needs to turn tricks to eat and get hormones because she can't get hired at Burger King...

I seriously think that social change in favor of improving the quality of life for people should always trump someone's inability or reluctance to "handle the issues". Even if that reluctance is shared by the overwhelming majority of people.

The comeback will likely be something along the lines of backlashes, and violence targeted against the minority. Well, as a person who has lived as a minority in a variety of forms; I can tell you that violence is happening now.

[rhythmic delivery]

Huh? I'm sort of lost or confused by this comment, Hank.
It's too important a matter to leave to Americans?

If it shouldn't be up to us (since it is our country),
who should it be left up to?

america deserves whoever they elect, the rest of the world does not. although the use of the "elect" in this statement sin't very accurate.

[hankhavelock]

Just received this message from the Barack Obama campaign... for all you Democrats out there... please send it on to every one you know!

www.voteforchange.com

Peace!

H

hank --

You'd be surprised how many people you know aren't registered to vote.

Registration deadlines are coming up soon, and we need every single vote we can get to win this election.

Tell your friends, family, and neighbors to check out our new one-stop voter registration website.

Just forward this message.

VoteforChange.com makes it easier than ever to register. Instead of tracking down the right forms, all you need to do is answer a few basic questions and you'll be ready to vote. You can also:
- Confirm your existing registration
- Apply to vote absentee
- Find your polling place
If you don't know your own registration status or you'd like to learn more, take a minute to visit the site right now.

This race is too close and too important to stay home on Election Day.

If you take the time to register and vote -- and make sure everyone you know is registered as well -- we'll be able to turn the tide of the past eight years.

It's people just like you who will transform this nation.

Thanks,

Barack

[TracyCoxx]

Oh so nothing could possibly change from 2002-2004?

Yeah something changed. The 2004 presidential elections was coming and the democrats decided that agreeing with the president all the time wasn't good if they wanted to get into office so they suddenly started acting like the whole thing was Bush's idea.

[TracyCoxx]

www.voteforchange.com
You want change? Everyone vote for Paris Hilton. Things will definitely change.

[hankhavelock]

You want change? Everyone vote for Paris Hilton. Things will definitely change.

Oh... I didn't know she was running for president of the Unisted States... :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Oh... I didn't know she was running for president of the Unisted States... :frown:

Some advocate of change you are. You want us to stick to boring predictable candidates that have been made available by the same old system that has brought us candidates in almost every election in the history of the US. If you advocate change, you have to think differently....

Write in Paris Hilton!

[Molag Bal]

John McCain = Barack Obama. There is no difference between the two outside of mere cosmetic points. They both serve the interests of the ruling elite in their campaign of subjugation against the working class.

[TracyCoxx]

John McCain = Barack Obama. There is no difference between the two outside of mere cosmetic points.

Interesting. Could you cite a few of their major policies to illustrate your point?

[hankhavelock]

Some advocate of change you are. You want us to stick to boring predictable candidates that have been made available by the same old system that has brought us candidates in almost every election in the history of the US. If you advocate change, you have to think differently....

Write in Paris Hilton!

From the sublime to the ridiculous...

[gunslinger1985]

Obama would be a terrible president. Republican is the way to go, it is the only choice.

[Bionca]

Obama would be a terrible president. Republican is the way to go, it is the only choice.

Except that part where they won't let gals like me get married, or have some basic job protections ... you know minor stuff like that :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Except that part where they won't let gals like me get married, or have some basic job protections ... you know minor stuff like that :frown:

I thought Bush tried to ban gay marriage, and congress overrode him saying it's a state matter??

[hankhavelock]

Obama would be a terrible president. Republican is the way to go, it is the only choice.

...and then you woke up...

[SweetCharmer]

in the end on the election either way its gunna be a change coz if obama wins. black president which i think would be brilliant. on the other hand if McCain wins female vice president so on either side there's change but i want Obama to win. Yes he's relatively knew to things but he's a lot better than McCain. not being mean but he's a bit too old to become president in my eyes plus hes a veteran from the viet-nam war so he's from a different generation and might hold some of those old generation views.

[ila]

not being mean but he's a bit too old to become president in my eyes plus hes a veteran from the viet-nam war so he's from a different generation and might hold some of those old generation views.

Whereas anyone from a younger generation is so tolerant and understanding and would never hold views that pertain to their generation only. Yes I am being sarcastic.

[TracyCoxx]

in the end on the election either way its gunna be a change coz if obama wins. black president which i think would be brilliant. on the other hand if McCain wins female vice president so on either side there's change but i want Obama to win. Yes he's relatively knew to things but he's a lot better than McCain. not being mean but he's a bit too old to become president in my eyes plus hes a veteran from the viet-nam war so he's from a different generation and might hold some of those old generation views.

Could you clear up some things please? I don't understand why so many people think a black president is something 'brilliant'. Like it's such an obvious thing that's an answer to all our problems. What about Chinese Americans? Italian? What is it about a black president that is so compelling?

Second, why is Obama a lot better than McCain? Yeah McCain is old, but he seems to be in pretty good health.

Third, what's wrong with the viet-nam era generation?

[CreativeMind]

Except that part where they won't let gals like me get married, or have some basic job protections...you know minor stuff like that :frown:

Well, just for the record, McCain and Obama are BOTH against Gay marriage.

BOTH candidates only support civil unions and BOTH support the idea that Gay marriage should not be mandated at the Federal level, but instead decided upon by each individual state to respect the wishes of the people and because the United States is actually a Republic (which most people forget).

To be honest, the biggest test of Gay marriage is barely being talked about which sort of surprises me. Then again, maybe as election day draws closer it will once again become a classic "hot button" issue to sway last minute voters.

Right now its legal in California -- but only because it was sanctioned by the California State Supreme Court, which ruled that the state constitution is currently vague regarding what is (or isn't) a legally recognized marriage. And as is often the case in life, their ruling created a Dickens-like Tale of Two Cities. Up North in Liberal San Francisco cheers erupted (and marriage licenses were given out in droves)...meanwhile down south in conservative San Diego people's blood started to boil and a movement was born to amend the constitution once and for all.

So, on election day, Californians will FINALLY get to vote on a bill whether to amend the state constitution and officially ban Gay marriage (or not).

Right now if I had to place a bet, I'd say the vote to ban gay marriage will pass, though narrowly. Interestingly enough this is not a political Republican/Democrat thing, it's actually an AGE issue. Polls show that if you're under 40, you're part of the so-called "metrosexual" generation and more open to gay marriage...meanwhile if you're 40 or older, you're more traditional and against it.

So my guess is Gay marriage will get banned in California for now, and then in about 10 or so years...as more and more of that metrosexual generation become adults and their kids come of age and can vote too...that's when Gay marriage will finally pass. But one thing's for sure: on election day the California vote will be one to watch. If Gay marriage can't pass in a heavily Liberal "blue state" like California, it certainly isn't going very far in the rest of the country...

[Ogryn1313]

I thought Bush tried to ban gay marriage, and congress overrode him saying it's a state matter??

Maybe I am missing something here....there is the Constitution which the nation follows. It is what made America what it is along with the Bill of Rights. As such, it would seem to me, like it or not, that the Constitution would always trump state consitutions.

[TracyCoxx]

Maybe I am missing something here....there is the Constitution which the nation follows. It is what made America what it is along with the Bill of Rights. As such, it would seem to me, like it or not, that the Constitution would always trump state consitutions.

It does, but I guess the constitution isn't specific on exactly what marriage is, so that leaves it open to the states to define it.

[Ogryn1313]

The Constitution isn't specific about many things. It was written for a different time and written to always apply in the future. We must therefore interpret it correctly. But not by liberal judges legislating from the bench.

[TracyCoxx]

While you personally may be against treating different groups poorly, many who share your views do not. Or even worse, fail to see how not supporting issues like Gay marriage are harmful to actual people by making it difficult to access protections and services provided for hetro-married couples. Saying "what they do on their time doesn't bother me, but marriage is sacred".


Moderator: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor (Palin), I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

I'm confused. Why all the support for Obama on this issue?

[jimnaseum]

There is absolutely no question that Democrats are better for PEOPLE issues, but the truth is gay or transgender issues are a polititical hot potato. In the last election(?) the Republicans put a gay marriage proposal on the ballot just so the conservatives would come out and vote for their candidates while they were voting against "perversity"

[TracyCoxx]

There is absolutely no question that Democrats are better for PEOPLE issues, but the truth is gay or transgender issues are a polititical hot potato. In the last election(?) the Republicans put a gay marriage proposal on the ballot just so the conservatives would come out and vote for their candidates while they were voting against "perversity"

No offense to anyone here, but right now I think we have far bigger concerns... like keeping this country out of another depression. If Obama is elected, he's going to raise taxes, which will be a recipe for disaster. You can't legislate a recovery. The market has to do it, and taxing them will only cripple them. McCain isn't the best guy for the economy either, but at least I trust him not to make it worse.

[jimnaseum]

Offend away,
You are right and wrong, the economy is ALWAYS job#1 after keeping us out of a nuclear war.
Obama will raise taxes on the rich only, and actually thats just a re-ajustment from Damn Bush's hijinx, the middle class is the motor of the economy and that's who needs tax relief. When you cut taxes for everyone, what you really do is end up having to borrow billions from the Chinese, and end up paying one trillion to Wall St. The rich people don't pay that back (with interest) the middle class pays it back for the next thirty years.
As far as the stock market goes, even the crooked damn politicians are afraid of the games that get played there. You have to stand in awe of those pricks.

[TracyCoxx]

I could argue with you, but I'm not. If it's not you, it's millions more begging for a socialist America. I though this was a country where people wanted to make their own destiny. Maybe we all want the government to come be our mommy now. The country is what it is. I guess we'll find out what that is in 30 days.

[CreativeMind]

Obama will raise taxes on the rich only, and actually that's just a re-adjustment from Damn Bush's hi jinx, the middle class is the motor of the economy and that's who needs tax relief. The rich people don't pay that back (with interest) the middle class pays it back for the next thirty years.

At best, the Obama tax plan is laughable.
At worst, it is an economic disaster just waiting to happen...

First, I love how Obama still claims that "95% of all Americans will get a tax break if I'm elected." That's rather interesting since 100% of the people DO NOT even participate in the tax-paying pool to begin with. Currently, a whopping 41% of the public get refunds every year OR they don't pay AT ALL due to their income level. So how Obama can give a tax break to 95% of all Americans when only 59% are paying taxes to begin with is something that should send a shiver up your spine. Because when someone starts off doing their math that shitty, that's when you should start getting nervous. In fact, let's look at who really pays the taxes in America. I know everyone loves to point fingers at the other guy, but this is how it actually breaks down...

The wealthiest 1% earn 19% of the income, but they also pay 37% of the taxes.
In short, percentage wise, for as much as they take in, they pay twice out...

The top 10% pay 60% of the tab....

The other 50% earn 13% of the income but pay only 3% of the taxes.

Hey, I'm certainly not rich, but looking at the numbers it's impossible to deny that they pay more than a fair share. Hell, look at that last figure again and think about that: 50% of the people -- that's right, HALF of the people living here -- only help to cover 3% of the government's expenses. No wonder things like social security are bankrupt! Talk about disproportions!

Look, here's the truth about Obama and his Robin Hood-like 95% tax break for all: If he gets elected, he wants to send you 500 bucks. Yes, that's what it boils down to. His brilliant tax plan is nothing more than a rerun of the Bush $300 "give back" stimulus check that we all received this past year, the only difference being Obama wants to toss in an extra 200 bucks. Unfortunately, there's a problem with that, and I'll use myself as an example...

I pay about $160 a month for my combined AT&T phone/cell phone/DSL bill, and I pay about $40 for my DirecTV service -- so let's just call it an even 200 bucks. That means if Obama sends me $500 as my "tax break" , I can apply it towards those two things and basically get free phone and TV for 2 months.

And that's it. That was the astounding financial break that was somehow supposed to help me out for an entire year. Meanwhile, every other cost that I have...rent, gas, food, electricity...are still going UP, costing me about $100 (or so) a month extra. So nice going, Barack: you gave me $500 back...I paid my phone/cable bill...but meanwhile at the exact same time I had to shell out an additional $250, thus instantly cutting the value of your tax relief in half. In short, I don't consider giving me $500 to deal with a $750 swing very helpful. Because as I said it only helps for 2 months, after which I'm screwed for the other 10 months of the year.

And just like a late night commercial that screams at you:
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!!!

Obama's brilliant plan also re-defines "income" by now adding small business assets into the tax pool. So, as an example, if you had your own private limousine company -- let's say you had 2 or 3 cars running around in service -- under current tax law your income would be defined as the money you made from renting them out, from making money by driving people around (businessmen, prom kids, whatever). And you could likewise deduct certain costs (like gas, the price of cleaning a driver's suit, etc). Well, that sounds right. After all, that's the way we've defined income for ages.

But under Obama's whacked-out plan he wants to ADD IN those things. To Obama, if you were running that same limousine company, then the worth of the cars should count as income TOO since technically (in his view) you could sell them and make money. So since they have a worth they should be taxable, right? And that's the utter insanity of the Obama tax plan. He actually wants to redefine assets as "income" -- which, trust me, will translate into tax hikes across the board. And that's how he's really planning to come up with the $350 BILLION he wants for all-new programs. So you can bank on this: a lot of small business owners who would normally laugh out loud over the assertion that they clear $200,000 a year (and thus cross the Obama tax hike line) are going to be in for a big shock when Obama comes knocking to say, "I added things up and technically (in my view) you cross the $200,000 line. So pay up. You owe me more money."

Look, I'm not saying Obama isn't a personable guy. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't vote for him. That's up to each and every person to choose for themselves. But if you think a dyed-in-the-wool ultra Liberal like Obama who loves big government social programs is ONLY going to raise taxes "on the rich" -- especially now when the country ALSO has to come up with $700 Billion to bail out Wall Street (and even that is a low estimate since most economists believe it will take at least double that to fix the market) -- then you're kidding yourself.

[jimnaseum]

There was a telling photograph of Obama standing with all of Clinton's Economic advisors. All the Republicans said Clinton's plan wouldn't work, remember? The final American consumer pays for EVERYTHING. When you buy a coke from a vending machine, you pay for Coca Cola's taxes, the tin can maker's taxes, and the truck driver's taxes.
The Rich people don't get their money from working 68 hours a day, they bleed it from the American consumer. If the average Joe Six-pack is broke, then everything gets broke. Big Business will get all your money anyway. A consumer with bucks is the key to a healthy Financial USA.

[TracyCoxx]

There was a telling photograph of Obama standing with all of Clinton's Economic advisors.

Cool! That is a telling photograph. All it's missing is Carter and Bill Ayers. You've got Obama, who in '95 teamed up with domestic terrorist turned "community organizer" to create the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Bill & Obama got together to write the bylaws for the CAC. Bill-the-terrorist-Ayers was so impressed with Obama and his Carl Marx ways he let him run CAC, and made his home available for Obama to launch his senator campaign from. CAC's noble goal is to help educate children, and raised $100 million under Obama.

Bill Ayers, who lead terrorist group Weather Underground Organization, bombed police departments and government buildings including the Pentagon and US Capitol as part of their war on the US, found more stealthy ways to carry out his agenda via the CAC. The money didn't go to schools. It went to leftist, anti-capitalist activist groups that schools would have to affiliate with. One of those groups was ACORN, which was busted on a number of voter fraud charges, and pressured mortgage companies to make loans to people, especially minorities, who basically had no chance of paying them off (sound familiar?). The mortgage companies told them to go away, until Bill Clinton began rating mortgage companies with the CRA rating (Community Reinvestment Act created by Carter). Mortgage companies then had to suddenly give out all kinds of bad loans to get a high CRA rating.

Which of course leads us to where we are today, which is spending $700 billion to bail out the fallout of this mess, and avert another great depression. Hey, if Obama is elected, do you think he'll tell mortgage companies to stop making bad loans to minorities? LOL fat chance. Then of course, he'll raise taxes on businesses, so all these factors combine into sort of a perfect storm for financial disaster. So this is only the beginning.

But yeah, great picture you mentioned. It just needs Carter & Ayers to be truly complete.

[jimnaseum]

Obama was eight when Ayers was Radical. He does great things for schoolkids now.
Everything Bush has touched has gone to shit. Unless you're rich. The RNC owns McCain just like they owned Bush. Can you say "Keating Five?" Do you really want 4 more years?
OF the People, FOR the People, BY the People.....Damn Liberals......

[TracyCoxx]

Obama was eight when Ayers was Radical. He does great things for schoolkids now.
Everything Bush has touched has gone to shit. Unless you're rich. The RNC owns McCain just like they owned Bush. Can you say "Keating Five?" Do you really want 4 more years?
OF the People, FOR the People, BY the People.....Damn Liberals......

Yes, I'm sure Obama is going to keep saying that he was 8 at the time the bombings took place, and all the Obama disciples will cling to that, and hope that no one noticed the things that Obama and Ayers actually did do together.

Did I ever say that Obama and Ayers went around bombing things? No. Did I say that Obama knew Ayers back in 1968-1971? No. I said he worked with him around 1995. And I brought up the CAC organization they DID work on. Bill Ayers did not give up his war on capitalism in the 70s. He just changed the way he went about it. These so called great things they did for kids were for one, to indoctrinate a new generation with socialist propaganda, and two to legitimize the funding of radical left wing America hating groups.

Are you going to completely ignore the fact that Obama was knee deep in many of the organizations pushing banks to make the bad loans that were the cause of today's near financial meltdown? Are you going to ignore the fact that Obama worked with a known terrorist on the terrorists latest project? Are you going to ignore the fact that Obama, in his short run as senator, received the 2nd highest campaign contributions from Fannie May & Freddie Mac, 2nd only to Chris Dodd who's been in Washington since 1975? Are you going to ignore the fact that Bush tried to warn congress about Fannie May & Freddie Mac 10 times from 2001 through 2007, and 17 times in 2008? Are you going to ignore the fact that McCain was cleared of any accusations related to the Keating Five?

Yes, most likely. Because if history doesn't suit democrats, then democrats will lie and rewrite history, and repeat it over and over until everyone believes it. Michael Moore's film is a prime example of this. Also the stories that Bush somehow caused 9/11 (why?? and how??). And the stories saying Bush stole the 2000 election? And the stories that Bush steered Katrina into the poor areas of New Orleans with his top secret weather machines. Or stories that Bush had 5000 inmates killed and dumped the bodies in the Katrina aftermath. Or stories that Bush alone was responsible for the WMD screw up in Iraq, despite the fact that Albright, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac all insisted Saddam had WMD before Bush took office, as well as many other democrats on the intelligence committee and Clinton-appointed George Tenet of the CIA after Bush took office. And let's completely ignore the fact that tons of weaponized VX nerve gas from Iraq was found in Jordan shortly after the Iraq war started. Lets completely ignore all the progress that has been made during the Iraq war because the left has near total control of the media, hollywood, and universities.

So now you know some of Obama's dirty past. You can lead a donkey to water, but you can't get him to admit it's there. Again, if it's not you, it's millions more begging for a socialist America. If Obama wins, it will be for all the accusations democrats make about Bush and capitalism - despite the fact that at least 80% of it can be clearly shown to be untrue.

[jimnaseum]

You watch too much Fox news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

[TracyCoxx]

You watch too much Fox news.I tried watching CNN a few times and OMG I couldn't believe the things they were saying. They had a panel of I don't know what on there, and most were claiming the financial mess was Bush's fault, one guy was actually calling Bush a moron (sure he may think this, but to actually say it on a news channel claiming to be unbiased?). I was waiting for one of the people on the panel to disagree, because usually you have both sides there. Yeah, I know, it must be my crazy expectations after watching Fox News. Anderson Cooper just sat there taking it all in. I'm not going to say the people on Fox News are not biased, but they would never go this negative, they do report both sides, and the news they report is accurate.

BTW, I didn't get the scoop on Obama & Ayers from Fox. They've only started reporting it this weekend. I found out about it when Obama's other democratic rivals were using it against him before the primaries, and have been researching it since then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCYLMAO!!! Hilarious!

But here's the best reason to watch Fox:

[hankhavelock]

You watch too much Fox news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

Let's bear with the panicked bastards... this is their last kicking for laissez-faire (as opposed to liberalistic) economy, moralistictic (as opposed to moral) world views and the right to rule and impose fascism on others based on no knowledge, false religion and screaming falsettos...

They are soon gone... and what else can we say than sigh: good riddance? Bye bye, babes!

Peace!

H

[Rikki]

Obama would be the better man, but it'll probably be the other jerk. Similar to how Bush jr got presidency, I predict.

[Ogryn1313]

I tried watching CNN a few times and OMG I couldn't believe the things they were saying. They had a panel of I don't know what on there, and most were claiming the financial mess was Bush's fault, one guy was actually calling Bush a moron (sure he may think this, but to actually say it on a news channel claiming to be unbiased?). I was waiting for one of the people on the panel to disagree, because usually you have both sides there. Yeah, I know, it must be my crazy expectations after watching Fox News. Anderson Cooper just sat there taking it all in. I'm not going to say the people on Fox News are not biased, but they would never go this negative, they do report both sides, and the news they report is accurate.

BTW, I didn't get the scoop on Obama & Ayers from Fox. They've only started reporting it this weekend. I found out about it when Obama's other democratic rivals were using it against him before the primaries, and have been researching it since then.

LMAO!!! Hilarious!

But here's the best reason to watch Fox:

The interesting thing will be to see how Obama and the far left will counter this. He now has three questionable associations, Ayers, Wright, Resco. Obama is very tight lipped about these matters. When he does his soft interviews he's not asked about such things. When his challenger or hard interviewers ask and persist Obama and his camp respond with insults. Typical of the far left. It's hilarious how people are starry eyed regarding Obama and blatantly willing to overlook any possible questionable aspects of the man. I first heard of his ties to Ayers during the time all the crap about Rev. Wright came out. And let's not forget his other pal Rev. Phleger. The bottom line, when it comes to the media is NBC news is blatantly rooting for Obama. They recently did a piece attacking McCain's time as POW interviewing someone in charge of the prison, who paints a nice rosey picture of McCain's being held prisoner with "pleasant" chats in the evening. I'm sure veterans across the nation would object to this. But since when does anyone care about veterans? To Obama and the leftist elite veterans and servicemen are the bottom percent. NBC has been pro-Obama since the outset. CNN clearly favors him based on the number of stories that are against McCain and the lack of negative stories on Obama. Much of the media in America leans left so it stands to reason they'd be pro-Obama.

This link is a study regarding the media bias.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Nor is it the only one done either. So far, most of what I've researched backs up the statement that the media leans to the liberal side.

[merelypink]

Obama :) 08

[TracyCoxx]

Unfortunately

[Devil]

I'm voting for Obama. He just seems so much more together than McCain.

It's a shame, really, because I really liked McCain back in 2000. I sometimes wonder what happened to the Senator I used to respect. Where did he go? :no:

[TracyCoxx]

Obama presents his case well. If he were a PR person for a large company, he would do very well. McCain isn't so good at communicating his policies, but he has better policies. If McCain was the CEO of a large company, he would do very well. The PR person will always sound like they have it together more than the CEO does, but that doesn't mean they are capable of running the company.

[JohnTB]

I'm voting for Obama. He just seems so much more together than McCain.

It's a shame, really, because I really liked McCain back in 2000. I sometimes wonder what happened to the Senator I used to respect. Where did he go? :no:

Hello!

I'd like those two statements explained. I dislike both candidates and would only vote for Micael Bloomberg (Mayor, NYC), but,

- to say a man with no experience (only 143 days in Wash DC) and with an atrocious voting record (rated 'more liberal/left than Ted Kenedy), and an inability to commit to a position and make his position "Public Record" in voting in the Illinois legislature (most votes of 'present') and who refuses to denounce and actually supports 'partial-birth' abortions (the killing of a healthy/viable baby in the minutes before it would pass through the birth canal at full term - otherwise called murder) - and, thereby, to say "he just seems so much more together" is beyond my understanding. I'd conceed he is a polished orator and cool personality with a persona and charisma not seen in recent American candidates, but????????????

So, as I have made statements in my question, and noted the expanatory detail in parens, I'd ask you to explain how this political cameleon could be perceived as 'together.'

As for McCain - I cannot vote for him for two reasons: 1. his position on and his co-authorship of the Amnesty Bill for illegal immigrants now in the USA; and, 2, his work in the Senate, while it is often important to compromise on some issues to accomplish objectives, he has worked and voted demonstrably to left too often. He crosses the aisle too often and goes beyond compromise and votes left of Center.

Now you may not like what I said and/or you may just disagree with me - but, I have supported what I said, and not made unsubstantiated statements.

Thanks for patiently reading this. I awauit your explanations.

[hankhavelock]

Obama presents his case well. If he were a PR person for a large company, he would do very well. McCain isn't so good at communicating his policies, but he has better policies. If McCain was the CEO of a large company, he would do very well. The PR person will always sound like they have it together more than the CEO does, but that doesn't mean they are capable of running the company.

Don't worry, darling. Barack can not only brand your brand better... he can also run it better. It comes with his intellectual habitus - not a well known aspect among Republicans I'm painfully aware, but so be it.

Now we can hold our breath for 18 more days, and if things work out the way they should for the good of the world (and your country as well), then we can start picking up the pieces left by 8 years of fascist Republican policy making.

Peace!

Hank

[SweetCharmer]

y'know i would be really surprised if barack doesn't win coz with all the financial trouble the wons who are coming out on top of it all are the democrats and i think this is a very good time for obama to do that last sprint to presidency

[hankhavelock]

Whatever... it's time that fascism, laissez-faire economics, neo-conservatism, misinterpretated religion and other nasty stuff finally give way to true liberalism and socially just democracies - even in America! The old guard is getting smaller, so there is hope that even America can become a country where at least a minor degree of true brotherly love can again find its way into an otherwise super capitalistic, hypocritical system. Maybe you will even be able to call yourself a democracy again in time... Jesse Ventura will probably not be as hopeful... ;-)

The nasty thing is that George Bush and all the corrupt directors will ride out into the sunset to their fat pensions... unchallenged. They created this shit, they will never pay for their mess. And trust me, neither will THEIR children... but YOURs will... my "friends", as the weird man keeps yelling... pathetic Republicans...

Sorry, guys... I just so intensely dislike the complete lack of social fairness and solidarity that seems to be more and more the style in and a brand of your country. And the more fascistic the messages, the more "patriotic" they apparently are - judged by the "real and truly" well-thinking Americans...

May Obama come asap! He is your only hope! He is every body's only hope! For goodness sake!

Democrats, go VOTE!

Peace and lots of FUNK!

H

[TracyCoxx]

Now we can hold our breath for 18 more days, and if things work out the way they should for the good of the world
You never answered my question from a while back. What has the US done that makes your life a living hell in Indonesia?

then we can start picking up the pieces left by 8 years of fascist Republican policy making.
Fascism is a totalitarian and nationalist ideology which is against both socialism and communism, and supports a so called 'Third Position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position)'. How does this relate to Republicans?

[TracyCoxx]

y'know i would be really surprised if barack doesn't win coz with all the financial trouble the wons who are coming out on top of it all are the democrats and i think this is a very good time for obama to do that last sprint to presidency

I have to give Obama a lot of credit. He's not only a part of the political party that caused the financial problems, he was actively involved with organizations such as ACORN which shared a very large part of the responsibility for the financial mess. It's quite a feat to be a part of all that, and still be able to convince the public that it's all the republican's fault. Especially when the Bush administration repeatedly tried to warn congress of the potential of financial disaster since he took office. But then it is true that the media helps him quite a bit in that department as well.

[CreativeMind]

Whatever... it's time that fascism, laissez-faire economics, neo-conservatism, misinterpretated religion and other nasty stuff finally give way to true liberalism and socially just democracies...

Sorry, guys... I just so intensely dislike the complete lack of social fairness and solidarity that seems to be more and more the style in and a brand of your country.


If you keep talking that way, Hank, then I can promise you this: you're going to seal the election, but for McCain.

Since you're in Indonesia perhaps you haven't been witness to the latest news craze here in the States, which centers around "Joe the Plumber." Long story short, he was just an ordinary guy who Obama came upon as he was walking through a crowd and shaking hands, at which point "Joe" -- as just an average working guy -- asked Obama face-to-face about his tax plans. And in a move of utter stupidity...right on camera and for all the world to see....Obama revealed his true ultra Liberal colors by talking about how he WOULD raise taxes and take money from successful people, all because he believes in "spreading the wealth around." And those were his words, not mine.

You see, Hank, here in America -- where you seem to think we are fascists (?!?) or that we have no social justice (which I would disagree with by arguing back that the USA has the greatest degree of social freedoms and justice in the world) -- we pride ourselves on ONE core belief. As Americans, we believe that people should be responsible for themselves. We believe in a capitalist system and not a communist or socialist one. As Americans, we believe that it's every person's right to be unrestrained by government -- so that every person can truly be free -- and, as a result, we have a Heaven sent right to make something of ourselves FOR ourselves. We also believe that if you save your money, then it's your money. And if you start up your own business and go from having pennies in your pocket to making your first million dollars, then that money should be yours, too. If you earned it, you get to keep it.

But I'll also tell you this. As Americans, we do NOT believe that anyone should be allowed to take your hard earned money "to spread the wealth around" in a socialist manner. Nor do we believe that someone...like Obama...should be allowed to take your money to reward others who are poor NOT because of hardships they've faced in life, but because they were simply too lazy to get off their ass and work a bit harder -- or work at all. In America, we do have a "welfare" system...a security net to help those who are disadvantaged or down on their luck...yet we also believe those self-same people have a personal responsibility to get OFF of welfare and eventually make their own way in life. We believe no one who is able-bodied or able-minded should be getting a free ride. Well, unless you're truly handicapped or crippled or something drastic like that, in which case we're then the most sympathetic of nations.

So, with all of that in mind, what was the fallout from Obama saying he wants to "spread the wealth around"? What was the reaction from having so many Liberal Democrats suddenly being on TV and thumping their chests and echoing Obama's pro-socialist thoughts just because they thought they had this election in hand? Well, I'll tell you what happened...

...As of today the race has drastically tightened. Obama's poll numbers have dropped. In fact, of the 5 "swing states" which could determine this election, Obama's lead in 3 of them has now dropped to the margin of error (meaning on election day he could lose them entirely) AND in the 2 other key swing states of Florida and Ohio, McCain has once again taken the lead. In fact, in Florida -- which determined the Bush election -- McCain benefited from a 6 point swing just over the weekend due to Obama's stupid wealth spreading plan.

In short: it's NEVER a good thing to lecture Americans on "true liberalism" or to lecture us on how we need to become a more "socially just" place. True ultra left liberalism is NOT who we are at heart. It's NOT a political philosophy that our country was founded on back in 1776 -- in fact, it's the polar opposite, which is why the average American voter...even to this day...still opposes it so much. So saying things like that -- as Obama has now found out -- only acts like a bucket of cold water to the face, at which point Americans remember that we LIKE being capitalists and we DO believe that our ways are superior. At which point we'll vote for the President who will give the middle finger to the rest of the "liberal and socialist" countries of the world because we, as Americans, want NO part of that.

[Limegirl]

In short: it's NEVER a good thing to lecture Americans on "true liberalism" or to lecture us on how we need to become a more "socially just" place. True ultra left liberalism is NOT who we are at heart. It's NOT a political philosophy that our country was founded on back in 1776 -- in fact, it's the polar opposite, which is why the average American voter...even to this day...still opposes it so much. So saying things like that -- as Obama has now found out -- only acts like a bucket of cold water to the face, at which point Americans remember that we LIKE being capitalists and we DO believe that our ways are superior. At which point we'll vote for the President who will give the middle finger to the rest of the "liberal and socialist" countries of the world because we, as Americans, want NO part of that.

Well, thats true, every country has its own way to see things depending its own historical heritage, most americans are people comming from Europe flewing poverty, political and religius opression toi create themselves a new life free of all that they left behind..
In contradictionary to that many European countries(not the easten ones) the word socialism have stand for something very good, justice, equality, fairness when its achived in the democratic socialdemocratic cote, not of cuz in the twisted comunist/socialist cote that comes from the former Sovietunion, thats another story.
In many western european countrues like in Scandinavia and Germany has
succeeded to create strong welfare states who has combined the econmical strengt of the efficient capatalist market and good social security and benefits for the citizens by economical transformations by taxes,
This kind of politic should be totally political impossible to achiv in America cuz of its historical traditions and heritage and the opposit, Americas politics should be totally political impossible to archive in many westeurpean countries cuz of their traditions and historical heritage..
Americans often see Comunism and twisted socialism in its Soviet version when they hear about liberalism, socialism etc they are not able to separate socialdemocrats from Soviet comunism, who is two total different things.. Europeans instead often see fairness and justice when they hear about american liberalism and they often see the average Americans opinions as egoistic, primitive and brutal..there people are left on their own and blamed if they failed in life as always their own fault..
This total different views often creates collisions and missunderstandings between them..is it ever possible to make a bridge between this two mentallity gaps and create a constructive dialogue..?

/Limegirl

[ila]

As Americans, we believe that it's every person's right to be unrestrained by government -- so that every person can truly be free -- and, as a result, we have a Heaven sent right to make something of ourselves FOR ourselves.


A Heaven sent right - You can't be serious

[jimnaseum]

Obama will indict Bush, Cheney, Rove, and several Republican members of Congress which will effectively disable the party for years (in February)

Obama will Slash military spending on million dollar ordinance but will increase Army payroll by inducting every black, hispanic, and criminal in a kind of "FDR Welfare Army" to improve infrastructure and patrols at the Mexico border.

Obama will risk Nuclear war with Pakistan within 8 months of becoming President.

Obama will be shot twice but survive, impoving his "street cred"

Iraq will go to Hell.

The US will be a cooler place to live than Europe.

US Billionaires will all move to Europe after President Biden imposes flat tax of 50%

[TracyCoxx]

As Americans, we believe that people should be responsible for themselves. We believe in a capitalist system and not a communist or socialist one. As Americans, we believe that it's every person's right to be unrestrained by government -- so that every person can truly be free -- and, as a result, we have a Heaven sent right to make something of ourselves FOR ourselves.

CreativeMind, I like what you wrote (except for the heaven sent part as I am an atheist), but I have to admit to myself though, that if this were true about Americans, why are presidential races against liberal candidates so close, and why is this race looking like the most Marxist candidate ever will win? This should easily be a landslide against Obama.


p.s. I'm still hoping Hank answers my question: What has the US done that makes your life a living hell in Indonesia?

[CreativeMind]

A Heaven sent right - You can't be serious

Well, since I believe in a God, I'm quite serious. Now, that might not be true for you and certain beliefs that you have. But that's fine, I never said each person wasn't entitled to their own opinion. I was merely stating mine.

And I'm not ashamed to admit my beliefs. And as an American, I'm proud that I see eye-to-eye on this matter with our Founding Fathers -- and the elegant words of Thomas Jefferson -- who on July 4, 1776, signed the Declaration of Independence to create America with these resounding words...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

"Endowed by their Creator (that's Creator with a capital "C") with certain unalienable rights."
That sure sounds like a Heaven sent right to me!

[CreativeMind]

CreativeMind, I like what you wrote (except for the heaven sent part as I am an atheist), but I have to admit to myself though, that if this were true about Americans, why are presidential races against liberal candidates so close, and why is this race looking like the most Marxist candidate ever will win? This should easily be a landslide against Obama

Hello, Tracy! I've never really said hello to you on these boards, but I just wanted to say I think the political comments you always make are spot and and brilliant. You've done an excellent job all through the campaign season arguing a certain perspective with facts and intelligence, so bravo you.

As for the mention of religion, well, see my post right above.
But as I said, to each his own.

And as for why these contests are always so close, my personal belief is because as a nation we've become split right down the middle. When Bush beat Gore due to the Florida recount, everyone got so hung up on the actual WAY the ballots were being counted that they missed the far bigger picture. I have friends who are heavily involved in politics and let me tell you, from their insider view, they all recognized the seismic earthquake that was happening. It started with Reagan motivating the Right...but pissing off the Left...and then Clinton motivating the Left...but pissing off the Right. By the end of Clinton's term in office, the battle lines were now forever drawn.

When Bush narrowly beat Gore, all my political friends said "This only confirms the notion of how split we are. But like any good scientific theory, we need to run the test again to see if we get the same results. So, in 4 years we're going to see IF the rift is REAL. In other words, for better or for worse, we're going to discover how much each side really hates the other." And sure enough, Bush managed to beat Kerry (taking both the electoral college and the popular vote) -- but it was another squeaker and now the Left was more angry than ever before.

And that hatred has reached a boiling point, as evidenced by the way the Left and the media have demonized Sarah Palin -- who lest we forget just happens to be a full sitting Governor, has her state's economy on completely track and is even running a budget surplus, and who actually has the highest approval rating of ANY Governor in the United States by that state's actual citizens. And yes, I'm one of those who will firmly argue that Sarah Palin does have far more hands on and practical managerial experience running a government office than Obama could ever DREAM of claiming, which makes him even more of an utter joke to me.

But going back to your core question asking "why" these elections are so close, I think it's simply because half of the country now is truly, truly Right -- meanwhile half of the country is truly, truly Left. And the Left just loves the idea of taxing the rich. Hell, even today idiot Barney Frank (who should be tossed into jail for his role in the mortgage scandals) was asked how Obama could EVER hope to pay for all of his promises, to which Frank then replied: "I'm sure we can always find more rich people to tax." That's the modern Left for you. The see ever-rising taxation as the easy path to securing money for either spreading around willy nilly orfor tossing at more worthless social engineering programs.

And yes -- as harsh as this might sound -- these modern elections are close because of the so-called "poor" in this country...I'm talking about the 40% who don't pay any taxes AT ALL...but who likewise get a vote on election day. So, right now that's 40% of the country who are backing Obama because he's running around promising them "Hey, elect me and you'll get the sweetest deal of all. Not only will you NOT have to pay taxes, but I'll ALSO take money from the other 60% and just GIVE IT TO YOU."

[CreativeMind]

This total different views often creates collisions and missunderstandings between them..is it ever possible to make a bridge between this two mentallity gaps and create a constructive dialogue..? l

Limegirl, I think there's always room for constructive dialogue between countries or even people. However, for there to ever be a REAL constructive dialogue, you have to START by understanding the other person that's sitting across the table from you and realizing that THEIR country or THEIR beliefs or THEIR concepts of government and social justice may not be yours. And therefore you can't open a successful dialogue by just outright mocking them or criticizing them or dismissing their views.

The best example is what Hank wrote and reading what I wrote, and then realizing how apart we actually are. Now, I've never met Hank (so hello, Hank!) but based on his posts at this site I'll take a guess and assume that he's basically an okay guy. Or least he seems to be. And in return I'd like to think that I'm a pretty nice guy, too!

But the second that someone like Hank starts saying that America (as a country) and that we as Americans (as a people) need to be more Liberal and Leftist or more Socialistic or Progressive (or whatever term you want to pick) in our political beliefs -- or in the way that we act as a society -- is the moment that he's going to lose a lot of listeners -- at least here in America -- since those political beliefs that he likes to espouse are 180 degrees and completely opposite from what Americans actually believe in.

Now, the rest of the world might not like hearing that. The rest of the world may feel that America somehow "owes it to them" to bend to their global will or their personal requests, but it just isn't going to happen. And that's because the minute the rest of the world starts making demands on America is the moment that we, as Americans, will remember WHY our country was founded in the first place. Namely, it was created by people who came here because they REJECTED European political beliefs. And I hate to break this to the Euro crowd out there, but here in America we like you...we're happy to be your friends...but we still feel the exact same way that we did over 200 years ago. Which means we STILL reject your European concepts of government or your particular views on how a society should be ruled.

[TracyCoxx]

Hello, Tracy! I've never really said hello to you on these boards, but I just wanted to say I think the political comments you always make are spot and and brilliant. You've done an excellent job all through the campaign season arguing a certain perspective with facts and intelligence, so bravo you.Thank you :) And hello to you!

And yes -- as harsh as this might sound -- these modern elections are close because of the so-called "poor" in this country...I'm talking about the 40% who don't pay any taxes AT ALL...but who likewise get a vote on election day. So, right now that's 40% of the country who are backing Obama because he's running around promising them "Hey, elect me and you'll get the sweetest deal of all. Not only will you NOT have to pay taxes, but I'll ALSO take money from the other 60% and just GIVE IT TO YOU."

Well that's the point I was getting at above. We are not the capitalist nation we once were. We are slowly changing because more and more of the population is realizing they can vote themselves an income.

Alexander Tytler (1747-1813) said:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage.



Socialism is a cancer. First acts of charity are legislated for a few members of the population. Then more people start saying 'what about me', and more and more until the majority of the population has pretty much given up and will vote themselves generous gifts from the treasury. It reaches the point that the conservative politicians must start promising social welfare programs just to get elected (see McCain and Bush Jr). The cancer grows and grows until it becomes fatal. Since these races are so close these days, it suggests that the day is nearly here when the majority of the population is socialist, and then it's a slippery slope to financial meltdown. There is no way that a shrinking portion of the population can continue to support the growing portion of deadbeats.

Now it might be after Obama has wrecked the economy by taxing companies in the middle of a recession/near-depression that people will realize like they did after Carter that we need a real conservative in office. These lessons are costly though. Any time you have a far left liberal in office there will be lasting scars, like Carters Community Reinvestment Act, which ultimately developed into the global financial crisis we have today. But what do you do... every other generation of young idealistic bright eyed commies must learn the hard way.

[TracyCoxx]

Now, the rest of the world might not like hearing that. The rest of the world may feel that America somehow "owes it to them" to bend to their global will or their personal requests, but it just isn't going to happen.

It isn't? Imagine Obama in office. Look at this at 5:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJQ4O0KHeVo

It's just neighborliness! LOL

[ila]

Well, since I believe in a God, I'm quite serious. Now, that might not be true for you and certain beliefs that you have. But that's fine, I never said each person wasn't entitled to their own opinion. I was merely stating mine.

And I'm not ashamed to admit my beliefs. And as an American, I'm proud that I see eye-to-eye on this matter with our Founding Fathers -- and the elegant words of Thomas Jefferson -- who on July 4, 1776, signed the Declaration of Independence to create America with these resounding words...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

"Endowed by their Creator (that's Creator with a capital "C") with certain unalienable rights."
That sure sounds like a Heaven sent right to me!

You should never try to guess what my religious beliefs are and don't try to tell me what my religious beliefs are because you will always be wrong.

As for the "heaven sent right" it looked to me like you were trying to say that God has said to America "You have the right to make something of yourselves for yourselves." You will have to prove to me that that is a heaven sent right in order for me to believe such a statement. Just because Thomas Jefferson made a statement about what you interpret as heaven sent rights, it doesn't necessarily make it a true statement.

[Limegirl]

Limegirl, I think there's always room for constructive dialogue between countries or even people. However, for there to ever be a REAL constructive dialogue, you have to START by understanding the other person that's sitting across the table from you and realizing that THEIR country or THEIR beliefs or THEIR concepts of government and social justice may not be yours. And therefore you can't open a successful dialogue by just outright mocking them or criticizing them or dismissing their views.

Now, the rest of the world might not like hearing that. The rest of the world may feel that America somehow "owes it to them" to bend to their global will or their personal requests, but it just isn't going to happen. And that's because the minute the rest of the world starts making demands on America is the moment that we, as Americans, will remember WHY our country was founded in the first place. Namely, it was created by people who came here because they REJECTED European political beliefs. And I hate to break this to the Euro crowd out there, but here in America we like you...we're happy to be your friends...but we still feel the exact same way that we did over 200 years ago. Which means we STILL reject your European concepts of government or your particular views on how a society should be ruled.

In one way I understand what you meant to say and one way I dont...
America and Europe is 2 different places with total differnent historical experiences, America is built mostly by european immigrants who flewed poverty, political and religius opression and therefore it have this tradition of individual freedom and hatred against anything they may feel is a theat to this
freedom...these threats are often called lefties,communists, socialism or what ever...in Westen Europe people have diffuclties sometimes to understand that point of view, cuz in Europe "Socialism" not necessery means what it means in America..a way to Sovietcommunism,Gulag etc...there is democratic socialism too that respect the rules of democracy to its full point, and many countries in Europe that have been ruled by what in Americans called "Communist" or Socialistic regimes had been very proseprous and give its poulations and incredible standard of living, welfare benefits and freedom...and these regimes has been elected by the people in free elections...we live in a complicateded and complex reality with no easy answers...America is the greatest superpower in the world with an enomurous economical and military strenght..Americas concerns is the whole worlds concerns..cuz it actions affect the whole world..and therefore it must take critism...but America is Europes salvation in many ways..it takes the enomourus hordes of the owercrowed Europe and give them a new life..its safed Europe from both nazy and communist rule under Hitler or Stalin...
There is no "right" or "wrong" here I think..I can understand both the American AND the European point of views..
BUT I have difficulties with the fact when people refere to "God" to justifie their own opions..thats pure powerplay...everyone can justifice almost everything and just say that "God" gves them the holy right to act as they do..Then the American indians could say that "God" gives them the holy right to take back their land the white people stole from them..A whole more fair demand then the jews demands, who refers to "God" when they take the land Israel/Palestine from the palestines..a land they have not lived in for 2000 years...How should the map in the world look like if every people should begin to refer to "God" and wanted back all the land they lost in history..?

[iapetus]

he was actively involved with organizations such as ACORN which shared a very large part of the responsibility for the financial mess.

ACORN, an organization that registers voters, is responsible for the financial mess?

[TracyCoxx]

ACORN, an organization that registers voters, is responsible for the financial mess?

ACORN does more than just voter fraud. Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which encouraged lenders to make loans to poor minorities. Banks pretty much ignored the CRA because it made no financial sense. So ACORN harrassed banks until they would start making the questionable loans. They would hold sit ins at the banks to drive away costomers. They would also show that banks weren't complying with CRA at public hearings and thus preventing bank mergers which the banks wanted.

So the banks started making some bad loans to the poor. This still wasn't enough for ACORN. The banks told ACORN that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae wouldn't buy the loans from them so that's all they could do.

So ACORN lobbied congress and Clinton to enforce the CRA and force Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae to buy the bad loans. Now that there was actually a market for bad loans banks started making loans to the poor. Clinton further enforced it by creating a CRA index for banks that the banks would use to compete. So they would actually compete to see who could make the most loans to the poor.

The obvious result of this madness is that people started defaulting on their loans in such great numbers that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae couldn't insure all the bad loans, and the govt had to step in to help Freddie and Fannie last summer.

The real problem was that since there were so many defaulted loans, no one was really sure how much the loans were worth anymore and so the flow of money siezed up and banks began to go under. Thus the financial melt down.

Where was Obama in all this? He was head of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge where he and his buddie Bill Ayers helped raise millions for ACORN. Obama was also a layer for several of ACORN's court cases and gave them leadership training. Then he moven on to the senate where he continued to support ACORN and Freddie & Fannie. This is why after being in the senate for only 2-3 years Obama was the 2nd highest receiver os campaign funds from these organizations.

This is what happens when these idealistic policies make it into the real world.

If Obama is president, do you think he'll blame ACORN and all these bad policies for the financial mess? No. He'll put the blame on Bush who had been warning congress 17 times since 2001 that this would happen. So the problem will go unfixed and you can get ready to pay even more in taxes as the govt spends trillions more on future bailout packages.

[jimnaseum]

There has not been a winning Republican ticket without a Nixon or a Bush on it since 1928.

[TracyCoxx]

There has not been a winning Republican ticket without a Nixon or a Bush on it since 1928.

Except for Hoover.

Oh, and Eisenhower.

Oh, don't forget Ford.

And uh, Reagan.

But yeah, other than those four, there was just Bush & Nixon.

[jimnaseum]

Hoover was elected 1928, one year before the '29 crash.
Eisenhower-Nixon
Ford lost to Carter
Reagan-Bush

[TracyCoxx]

Oh ok. Gotcha

[hankhavelock]

In short: it's NEVER a good thing to lecture Americans on "true liberalism" or to lecture us on how we need to become a more "socially just" place...So saying things like that -- as Obama has now found out -- only acts like a bucket of cold water to the face, at which point Americans remember that we LIKE being capitalists and we DO believe that our ways are superior. At which point we'll vote for the President who will give the middle finger to the rest of the "liberal and socialist" countries of the world because we, as Americans, want NO part of that.

Excellent and beautiful description of the American neo-conservative way of viewing the world - devastatingly true! And why would you basicly give a shit what any one thinks? You just send the marines... simple! And good for you! Or is it?

George Bush and his hired hoods (or is he, actually, the pawn in the game) have SO broken away from the traditional American approach which used to be based on respect for humanity. No more. Ronald Reagan, God bless his soul, came forward as probably the most innovative American politician in foreign affairs since... since I don't even know, when an American president made such a significant difference. Your current administration is not only reaping the fruits of his work, they are misusing it in a sense to which the American brand is effectively destroying itself.

Is that what you want, my man? Are you truly so arrogant that you believe that your country can exist in love, peace and harmony DESPITE the rest of the world?

Wisen up! I'm not a socialist - never! However, having a bit of solidarity for the folks less fortunate in our socalled equal Western societies is not a crime... or is it? Actually, that's not only good morale, it's also good business. But good business aside, I come from a country where every body bitches about high taxes, but if you really dig deep into it, people (even the rich of us) appreciate a system where solidarity and taking care of those less fortunate is the cornerstone of democracy.

Barack Obama will not make America into a socialist nation - that's ridiculous! He'll be better for American economy than any republican ever was. And a bit of wealth-redistribution is necessary to make a democracy work. Nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to - but the sane ones of us realize that without a degree of wealth-redistribution, chaos and lassez-faire follows. Need I refer to the current financial crisis?

No true democracy can work without a sincere concern for the less fortunate among us. If we cannot accept a system that puts it at its forefront to deal with poverty, then we are not democrats (with a small d). Adam Smith and Karl Marx are equally outdated...

The current American rethoric and waging of war has made it harder to be a Westerner in this world. It's time for an optimistic change. Barack will to a degree bring that.

Peace (love and harmony)!

HankyPanky

[hankhavelock]

But to Tracy, Creative Mind and all the other hard core right wingers here - I disagree with your views so deeply and so whole-heartedly - I think you are living in another century - but I enjoy our ability to have a good talk and "fight" here at this good forum.

Let's stay friends, and may you and the rest of the world all have a good election in a little bit more than a week ;-)

GObama!

[TracyCoxx]

And why would you basicly give a shit what any one thinks? You just send the marines... simple! And good for you! Or is it?
I know you don't like to get bogged down with details, but when have we ever sent the marines in for ONLY a disagreement?

Barack Obama will not make America into a socialist nation - that's ridiculous!He may not turn us into a socialist nation but he'll move us pretty far into that direction. If you don't know he's a socialist you haven't been paying attention as much as you think you have. Who would stop him? He'll have a democratic congress with socialist leaders like Nancy Pelosi.

Nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to - but the sane ones of us realize that without a degree of wealth-redistribution, chaos and lassez-faire follows. Need I refer to the current financial crisis?Please do refer to the current financial crisis. Again, I know you're not big on details but look up at my post at #167 which explains how a little bit of wealth distribution has in fact created the current financial crisis.


No true democracy can work without a sincere concern for the less fortunate among us.
If by less fortunate you mean those who are physically or mentally unable to support themselves, no one here has said they shouldn't receive some help.


If we cannot accept a system that puts it at its forefront to deal with poverty, then we are not democrats (with a small d).So enlighten us. How would yours and our hero Reagan deal with poverty? And do you think there might be differences in how Obama handles poverty?

The current American rethoric and waging of war has made it harder to be a Westerner in this world. It's time for an optimistic change. Barack will to a degree bring that.It doesn't look so optimistic for Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran. Obama and Biden have both rattled the sword with regards to those countries.

[hankhavelock]

It always amazes me what ring wing Americans characterize as "socialism". Basicly, you seem to believe that unless it's total laizzes-faire capitalism then it's socialism.

There is NOTHING socialistic about Barack Obama. He believes in a liberal democracy with a stronger approach to making it possible for every body in your country to enjoy basic human rights and welfare benefits.

Is that so bad?

Do you honestly believe that the current jungle-law is the best and most prudent way to run a socalled democratic and civilised nation?

Rhetorical question, I fear...

[ila]

I just got this fake in my email this morning. I don't know who created it, but I thought it was funny. The picture is called Dancing with the Stars - Winner.

(Republicans and Democrats can get along)

[TracyCoxx]

Now, the rest of the world might not like hearing that. The rest of the world may feel that America somehow "owes it to them" to bend to their global will or their personal requests, but it just isn't going to happen.

Oh, I also found this:
Obama sponsored the "Global Poverty Act" designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.

[TracyCoxx]

It always amazes me what ring wing Americans characterize as "socialism". Basicly, you seem to believe that unless it's total laizzes-faire capitalism then it's socialism.

There is NOTHING socialistic about Barack Obama. He believes in a liberal democracy with a stronger approach to making it possible for every body in your country to enjoy basic human rights and welfare benefits.

Is that so bad?As I said, you're not as informed as you think you are about Obama's socialist beliefs. You're probably focusing on what he says he'll do as president. If you believe in campaign promises you're pretty naive.

His childhood mentor Marshall Davis, was a communist

While at school, went to socialist conferences at Cooper Union.

He has many dealings with Bill Ayers, a socialist and domestic terrorist.

He was a member of the Chicago Socialist Party, the Chicago New Party (a socialist party), and the Chicago Democratic Socialist of America.

As a senator he has been endorsed by the Marxist party's Frank Chapman who wrote "Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary 'mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."

He is quite socialist, and when he becomes president he will implement a socialist agenda.

Do you honestly believe that the current jungle-law is the best and most prudent way to run a socalled democratic and civilised nation?Capitalism will do just fine.

Rhetorical question, I fear...
Speaking of rhetorical questions. The questions I asked in my previous reply to you were not rhetorical.

[hankhavelock]

Speaking of rhetorical questions. The questions I asked in my previous reply to you were not rhetorical.


You are such a darling conservative, Tracy :-)

No, Barack Obama is not a socialist - so very far from - and since you are so keen on getting into details (aside from just sweeping generalizations, which I seem to master so well :-), then let us, indeed, get into a debate about what socialism truly is.

You confuse a socialistic approach with a social democratic point of view. These are very different in their nature in the sense that the socialist believes in a predominantly state-owned economy where as the social democrat believes in a capitalistic system BUT with certain social measures to stem up the inherent greed in people.

America today is already partly social democratic, even though not as much as Northern Europe where I come from. And Barack Obama is even far from considering the social democratic values and methods that have been in work in my country for more than two generations.

"Social democracy" is the key word, and what it actually is, is a society where we ensure equality to the degree it's possible and also accept that for a country/community/group to work to every body's benefit, we need to look after "every one".

That means, that the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest loads - as well as allowing those with the broadest shoulders to enjoy the fruit of their broad shoulders.

Believeing that non-controlled capitalism will just let wealth dribble down on every body is naiive. That has never happened and will never happen. It's a jungle-law that may seem a wonderful utopia for libertarians and other romantics with similar disregard for societies being entities where we ALL have to as happy as possible, but it will never be a fact of life.

People are greedy - that's why a degree of wealth-redistribution is necessary.

But in time people realize the moral right in thinking beyond themselves... that's why even the rich bitch about the high tax but still prefer a system where we don't accept poverty as a part of the game. As we do in my old country. And as you will, hopefully, one day come to realize in your good country as well.

But that's probably far ahead - and not even Barack Obama has such views.

So no, Barack Obama is far from socialist, but he is, indeed, a guy who seems to chime the bells for a little bit of solidarity.

And again, is that so bad?

H

[jimnaseum]

The BIG MONEY Republicans didn't put any money into this election from the start, they knew after Bush and Cheney there was no chance of winning. Todd and Sarah's pillow talk revolves around how they're going to cash in on this election after they lose.
The Swing states will decide the election, and McCain isn't doing too good there.
This election is over.
I hope that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi quietly destroy the Republican party in the next eight years. But that's just my opinion.

[Indestructable2K4]

Wow... All these long posts. I'm going to be as blunt as I can be... I'm simply NOT voting for someone who doesn't even SALUTE THE AMERICAN FLAG. What kind of President would he be?

[TracyCoxx]

No, Barack Obama is not a socialist - so very far fromAgain, I'm drawing a difference between the policies he will implement (social democratic if you will) and his socialist mindset, which I'm pretty sure he has given the company he keeps.

He may not turn us into a socialist nation but he'll move us pretty far into that direction.
You confuse a socialistic approach with a social democratic point of view. These are very different in their nature in the sense that the socialist believes in a predominantly state-owned economy where as the social democrat believes in a capitalistic system BUT with certain social measures to stem up the inherent greed in people.
Look at my quote above. I'm not saying he will turn us into socialists. I said he will move us in that direction. The social democratic approach is a move in that direction.

That means, that the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest loads - as well as allowing those with the broadest shoulders to enjoy the fruit of their broad shoulders.But that's already happening here. Probably not to the extent it is in Europe, but 40% here pay no tax. Then the next bracket is at like 2%. And it goes on up to 35% for the rich. This is exactly what you're saying. Most people here (myself included) would favor a flat tax system. Under this system, the load is linearly proportional to the broadness of your shoulders, not exponentially proportional.

People are greedy - that's why a degree of wealth-redistribution is necessary.The rich here donate more to charity than anyone else in the world.

So no, Barack Obama is far from socialist, but he is, indeed, a guy who seems to chime the bells for a little bit of solidarity.

And again, is that so bad?
When equality is legislated that is bad. Competition is a good thing. If someone develops some product that enhances the quality of life then they should benefit from it. If they do not, then they have no motivation to develop the product. And this isn't cheap. If there's no potential of reaping the benefits, then putting resources into a dream eithout being repaid wouldn't make any sense. It's a good thing too for those socialst democrats out there who reap the benefits from the products and technologies we create.

It's what works for us. I'll try and get an answer from you again. How does our capitalist system cause you pain and misery in Indonesia?

[JohnTB]

what is the point of the elections in the US, they have already rigged them twice now. i think its quite likly that obama will get in, and i think he is the rite man for the job. but if he gets in you have to ask yourself why whoever it was rigged the election in favor of republicans the last two times why they haven't done it again. i also think if he is elected it will be verry likly that he will be assasinated. (their is still alot of racist people in america, some overtly and alot covertly, they are happy to live next door to a black man but they don't wan't one in power.) they done it to the kenedys and they where white, so i doubt they'll think twice about doing it to a black man.
america has produced some of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century, the kenedy's, martin luther king malcom X martin luther king JR.
and also some of the biggest cunts ever, J edgar hoover, richard milhause nixon, george HW bush and george W bush.

What a shame you are allowed to make such an ignorant (lacking knowledge) opening statement. You obviously failed American Government 101 and have no earthly idea of how the system works, either the general vote or the Electoral college (a genius system that prevents the uban centers from controlling the outcome of elections - study the American Sytem and you will learn alot. It is not the BEST possible sysem, but, it is the best in the free world.

You said. "...I think it is quite likely obama will get in...I think he is the rite man for the job..." Obviously, you aren't thinking: rite should be right; and obama should be Obama. Additionally, he is a naive ("...I will sit down face-to-face with..." the PM of Iran without pre-conditions {how absurd}); inexperienced (143 days in the US Senate {total Federal experience) at time of nomination; and, untested in administering government or any large organization or in foreign affairs of any sort; a state legislator who could not commit to a vote on important issues (voted 'Present' [as opposed to yes or no] on more pieces of legislation in the Illinois Legislature than anyone ever). I could go on and on and on...but I won't.

It is a sad day in America when the Democratic Party puts forward their most inexerieced candidate and he only won against the other most inexperienced candidate because the Party big shots tried to strong arm two independent State Partys and elimated them from the nomination vote, as punishement.

Read some facts; stop reading only the New Yorks Times/BBC News and stop drinking the the left wing propaganda Kool Aid.

It is also a sad day for America when the Republican Party can nominate a right of center candidate who wants to give illegal immigrants a free ride (Amnesty) and a blank check for Federal welfare when they are already destroying the American economy just to fatten up the big business purses. (PS: Obama favors the bill too.)

I have no use for either of them...or GW!!!!!

Enough said (but, please become informed and smart about a topic before you write. PLEASE!

[hankhavelock]

Tracy honey, I'll get back to your comments in a week or so... in general we have such deep differences on what is the right system for humans to live under, but I'll keep trying... :-)

What is swell here is that in spite of the intense republican campaign that has tried to make us believe that Barack Obama is a socialist, a muslim and an anti-American then the American people still seem to favour Barack Obama. In spite of all the sinister spins and hideous stuff, a majority of Americans still seem to withstand the pressure of the ultra right.

For that I salute you all. And I'll be the first to truly salute you once you have the guts to elect the first black man for President of the United States of America.

You are SO close to re-establish the American "brand".

This is the most important election in my life time... probably in yours too!

Peace, yawll! Go DO it! Make us all proud of you Americans! Make us all once again believe in the sanity of the United States of America!

GObama!

H

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy honey, I'll get back to your comments in a week or so...
Hankypoo. Since you are unwilling or unable to answer how America makes your life such a living hell over there in Indonesia, I'll just have to assume you're one of those America haters. So there's no point in educating you on the merits of a capitalist system. It's one of those you get it or you don't things. I don't see how it affects life in Indonesia. I can't imagine the general population there waking up, planning on doing something and saying "Blast! I can't! Because of those DAMN AMERICANS!!!". At least up until now, the majority of Americans got it. I have no illusions that McCain will win this election, so next week have a ball yucking it up.

Don't worry about me, I will be fine. I'm more than halfway through paying off my house with a low interest rate, so I won't be one of the one's paying off a 20+% home loan that will be waiting for us by the end of Obama's term. I live close enough to work that I can ride my bike if I have to, so I don't need to wait in the gas lines that will be coming. Obama wants to expand the government and I work for the government so I shouldn't be one of the ones in the double digit unemployment rate we'll have. And if I do loose my job, I can just mooch off of the paychecks of other people who work hard in the work force. Obama's policies are obviously doomed to failure just as making loans to poor minorities was obviously doomed to failure. Apparently a large portion of Americans need to learn this the hard way, and in 4 more years, hopefully they'll see the light and get back on track - as they had after making the mistake of electing Carter and coming together to elect Reagan.

What is swell here is that in spite of the intense republican campaign that has tried to make us believe that Barack Obama is a socialist, a muslim and an anti-American then the American people still seem to favour Barack Obama.I know, poor Obama... Having to bear the company of all those America-hating people around him like his parents, pastor, teachers, fellow students, business partners, wife, etc, and being stuck with a Muslim middle name, a Muslim father, having to go through Muslim teachings. Having to grimace and bear through all those socialist meetings he attended and having to humor all his socialist friends.... while all the while he's a true blue anti-socialist, bible thumping American patriot. Finally as president he'll be able to put that miserable past and those miserable associates behind him and he can start whistling Yankee Doodle Dandy.

And I'll be the first to truly salute you once you have the guts to elect the first black man for President of the United States of America.

I asked this question of someone else, and naturally got no answer, so I'll ask you (despite your long history of ignoring my questions):

Why do so many people think the idea of a black president is something 'brilliant'. Like it's such an obvious thing that's an answer to all our problems. What about Chinese Americans? Italian? What is it about a black president that is so compelling?

[JohnTB]

Obama will indict Bush, Cheney, Rove, and several Republican members of Congress which will effectively disable the party for years (in February)

Obama will Slash military spending on million dollar ordinance but will increase Army payroll by inducting every black, hispanic, and criminal in a kind of "FDR Welfare Army" to improve infrastructure and patrols at the Mexico border.

Obama will risk Nuclear war with Pakistan within 8 months of becoming President.

Obama will be shot twice but survive, impoving his "street cred"

Iraq will go to Hell.

The US will be a cooler place to live than Europe.

US Billionaires will all move to Europe after President Biden imposes flat tax of 50%
Hello,
I'm appalled: Ingorance (lack of knowledge) runs rampant here! While tongues wag uncontrioleed.

1. Obama, as President (if he becomes President), cannot indict anyone!
2. Obama, or any President, cannot cut Federal Defense spending. Only Congress has that power, subject to Presidential signature or, in the event of a veto, an override vote.
3. Again, the President cannot increase the military payroll. Only the House of Representatives can initiate spenging bills.
4. Congress oversees the military induction system that is used by the Dept. of Defense (DOD) which tells the Army what to do and how to do it,
5. The US military cannot operate with US borders. Only the National Guard patrols the Mexican border to supplement the Border Patrol. The Nat'l Guard is under the jurisdiction of the respective State's Governor.
5. A statement regarding Nuclear War with Pakistan is beyond stupid - it is exponentially absurd and does not warrant a further reponse.
6. The rest belongs in the category ansered by #5 above...

[Bionca]

JohnTB.. first it may be good to read the quoted post with a hair of scarcasm..it comse across as better written and a little funny. Also, do try to avoid calling people out on their spelling/typos.. it makes you look like a crap-stain... before calling a group of people out for being "uninformed", it would be helpful the not use terms like "partial birth" abortions" in your first post.

Partial Brth Abortions (not really called that by doctiors - just anti-choice folks and the media) are considered in less than 2% of abortions performed in the US. The procedeure is used in cases where there are complications during the birth and continuing with kill te mother or child. In all cases there has never ever been a resorded instance when a woman has stopped the borth of her baby and demanded an abortion instead - infact labor is considered "diminished capacity" and even if she was screaming "Kill it" and signing all the required forms for the procedeure... it would go in the trash.

I will say, it was a nice attempt at hyper.. maybe you could post on a less political topic where folks can get to know you before debating politics

[jimnaseum]

It's great that everybody can voice their opinion, a joke is a joke, the truth is the truth and a vote is a vote. Everybody voice their opinion and vote!!!
Just stood in line an hour for absentee voting in Virginia, FEELS GOOD

[hankhavelock]

Hankypoo. Since you are unwilling or unable to answer how America makes your life such a living hell over there in Indonesia, I'll just have to assume you're one of those America haters. So there's no point in educating you on the merits of a capitalist system. It's one of those you get it or you don't things. I don't see how it affects life in Indonesia. I can't imagine the general population there waking up, planning on doing something and saying "Blast! I can't! Because of those DAMN AMERICANS!!!". At least up until now, the majority of Americans got it. I have no illusions that McCain will win this election, so next week have a ball yucking it up.

Don't worry about me, I will be fine. I'm more than halfway through paying off my house with a low interest rate, so I won't be one of the one's paying off a 20+% home loan that will be waiting for us by the end of Obama's term. I live close enough to work that I can ride my bike if I have to, so I don't need to wait in the gas lines that will be coming. Obama wants to expand the government and I work for the government so I shouldn't be one of the ones in the double digit unemployment rate we'll have. And if I do loose my job, I can just mooch off of the paychecks of other people who work hard in the work force. Obama's policies are obviously doomed to failure just as making loans to poor minorities was obviously doomed to failure. Apparently a large portion of Americans need to learn this the hard way, and in 4 more years, hopefully they'll see the light and get back on track - as they had after making the mistake of electing Carter and coming together to elect Reagan.

I know, poor Obama... Having to bear the company of all those America-hating people around him like his parents, pastor, teachers, fellow students, business partners, wife, etc, and being stuck with a Muslim middle name, a Muslim father, having to go through Muslim teachings. Having to grimace and bear through all those socialist meetings he attended and having to humor all his socialist friends.... while all the while he's a true blue anti-socialist, bible thumping American patriot. Finally as president he'll be able to put that miserable past and those miserable associates behind him and he can start whistling Yankee Doodle Dandy.



I asked this question of someone else, and naturally got no answer, so I'll ask you (despite your long history of ignoring my questions):

Why do so many people think the idea of a black president is something 'brilliant'. Like it's such an obvious thing that's an answer to all our problems. What about Chinese Americans? Italian? What is it about a black president that is so compelling?


No not at all - I'm certainly not one of your America haters - I just dislike fascism and George Bush and all what he stands for. His stupidity, his arrogance, his completely failed policy, his pseudo patriotism ("If you're not for me, you're against America..." and crap like that that he and his like-minded keep insinuating). He is luckily not the concept of America that I have met and respect.

He has in general made it considerably harder to be a Westener anywhere in the world. My comments are per se not specifically geared toward Indonesia. He's merely a dumb guy who never should have been elected... and now he'll laugh his ass off and ride into the sunshine to collect his fat pension, apparently totally unaware of the fact that he has left the world so much worse off than eight years ago.

I hope you don't suggest that one has to love George Bush to like America?

And regarding why it is "brilliant" that a black man gets the presidency? Not only is that in itself of immense historical value for all non-whites (in the whole world), but it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent. Aside from that, I belive his policy is promising. He is a bridge builder and can hopefully mend some of the terrible wounds that your friend George Bush amBUSHED this world with.

So yes, I am certainly hoping for the best in these coming hours - for the whole bloody world!

Peace!

H

[TSBBG]

There is an old song by the Who called 'Won't get fooled again'. One of the lines is 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

[hankhavelock]

What can I say? This is, indeed, a glorious day! A wonderful day for us all. For you Americans and the rest of us likewise.

God bless the result! Barack Obama did it! We did it!

Barack Obama, President-elect.

Congratulations to us all!

Peace!

Hank

[TracyCoxx]

Congratulations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMYkxszXe9s


:turnoff:

[TracyCoxx]

I just dislike fascism and George Bush and all what he stands for.He's not fascist. Hitler was fascist. If you cannot see the difference, then I think that speaks for itself.

He has in general made it considerably harder to be a Westener anywhere in the world.Bush is not president of the western world. You're from northern Europe right? Whatever they say about Bush does not apply to you. If they think one western country is the same as all western countries that's ignorant. Rise above it.

I hope you don't suggest that one has to love George Bush to like America?What have I ever said about Bush except to correct your error in saying he's a fascist?

And regarding why it is "brilliant" that a black man gets the presidency? Not only is that in itself of immense historical value for all non-whites (in the whole world), but it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent.But that's the thing. If he did have talent and experience and has some kind of track record to his name (hopefully a good track record), then I wouldn't mind so much that he's president. But he has hardly any track record. What little track record he does have is unimpressive. (i.e. in the Illinois state Senate he voted 130 times 'present.' That's not yes, that's not no. That's maybe.) When tough issues come up in the world, he's going to have to take a stand. My guess is he'll ask his advisers. Perhaps they should be president instead. His experience? He's the least experienced person to become president in over 100 years. The only talent he has is in giving speeches. Make that reading speeches, he's pretty bad when he's ad libing. He'd make a better public relations person. But putting his lack of experience aside, and his call for 'change' and 'hope'. When you listen to what he says... There's nothing American to it.

So to your comment 'it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent' is complete BS. He is president because of his race and not because of his talent. That is not the American way. That's the Affirmative Action way.

[twistedone]

One thing I never talk about in a sex forum is politics.

The man won, lets hope he is better than Bush. For that matter, anything is better than Bush. George Bush that is.

The other kind of Bush is good. :p

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

He's not fascist. Hitler was fascist. If you cannot see the difference, then I think that speaks for itself.

Coming from a person who just posted a video of Lenin and Stalin with the Soviet national anthem playing in reference to Obama victory.

You know what's worse than an ignorant bullshitter, a hypocritical ignorant bullshitter.

[TracyCoxx]

Coming from a person who just posted a video of Lenin and Stalin with the Soviet national anthem playing in reference to Obama victory.

You know what's worse than an ignorant bullshitter, a hypocritical ignorant bullshitter.

How is it hypocritical when as I said above:
His childhood mentor Marshall Davis, was a communist

While at school, went to socialist conferences at Cooper Union.

He has many dealings with Bill Ayers, a socialist and domestic terrorist.

He was a member of the Chicago Socialist Party, the Chicago New Party (a socialist party), and the Chicago Democratic Socialist of America.

As a senator he has been endorsed by the Marxist party's Frank Chapman who wrote "Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary 'mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."

[rhythmic delivery]

i just hope that one day human beings and fish can co exist peacfully

[rhythmic delivery]

george W bush is the living embodyment of the american dream. only in america could a semi-retarded billionair get his dadys old job.

[St. Araqiel]

There is an old song by the Who called 'Won't get fooled again'. One of the lines is 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.
Sure hope not.

[hankhavelock]

He's not fascist. Hitler was fascist. If you cannot see the difference, then I think that speaks for itself.

Bush is not president of the western world. You're from northern Europe right? Whatever they say about Bush does not apply to you. If they think one western country is the same as all western countries that's ignorant. Rise above it.

What have I ever said about Bush except to correct your error in saying he's a fascist?

But that's the thing. If he did have talent and experience and has some kind of track record to his name (hopefully a good track record), then I wouldn't mind so much that he's president. But he has hardly any track record. What little track record he does have is unimpressive. (i.e. in the Illinois state Senate he voted 130 times 'present.' That's not yes, that's not no. That's maybe.) When tough issues come up in the world, he's going to have to take a stand. My guess is he'll ask his advisers. Perhaps they should be president instead. His experience? He's the least experienced person to become president in over 100 years. The only talent he has is in giving speeches. Make that reading speeches, he's pretty bad when he's ad libing. He'd make a better public relations person. But putting his lack of experience aside, and his call for 'change' and 'hope'. When you listen to what he says... There's nothing American to it.

So to your comment 'it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent' is complete BS. He is president because of his race and not because of his talent. That is not the American way. That's the Affirmative Action way.

TracyBaby, it would seem that the essense keeps escaping you... if you cannot grasp the importance of what has happened and if you cannot even in your right-wing little heart salute the beauty of it all, then I rest my case.

[smolderingtemptress]

So what have you decided? You swanky Americans with your (not so) reluctant approach (lately) to rule the world?

This sounds really condescending, and I don't appreciate it.

[hankhavelock]

This sounds really condescending, and I don't appreciate it.

Well, what can I say... you'll get over it... and don't take me too seriously... ;-)

[TracyCoxx]

And regarding why it is "brilliant" that a black man gets the presidency? Not only is that in itself of immense historical value for all non-whites (in the whole world), but it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent.


But that's the thing. If he did have talent and experience and has some kind of track record to his name (hopefully a good track record), then I wouldn't mind so much that he's president.
...

His experience? He's the least experienced person to become president in over 100 years. The only talent he has is in giving speeches. Make that reading speeches, he's pretty bad when he's ad libing. He'd make a better public relations person. But putting his lack of experience aside, and his call for 'change' and 'hope'. When you listen to what he says... There's nothing American to it.

So to your comment 'it is a break with former times inherent racism and is very true to the original American spirit of no judgement based on any thing but talent' is complete BS. He is president because of his race and not because of his talent. That is not the American way. That's the Affirmative Action way.

TracyBaby, it would seem that the essense keeps escaping you... if you cannot grasp the importance of what has happened and if you cannot even in your right-wing little heart salute the beauty of it all, then I rest my case.

Ok, so for Hank's reason for why we need a black president regardless of experience or his political leanings is "beauty"... reason ascertained: because America just needs a black president.

Well I guess that about wraps it up. Kind of anti-climactic I'd say. For some reason I thought you had more depth than that.

[smolderingtemptress]

Well, what can I say... you'll get over it... and don't take me too seriously... ;-)

And you want to imply WE are full of ourselves? That's rich...

[hankhavelock]

Ok, so for Hank's reason for why we need a black president regardless of experience or his political leanings is "beauty"... reason ascertained: because America just needs a black president.

Well I guess that about wraps it up. Kind of anti-climactic I'd say. For some reason I thought you had more depth than that.

Tracy, you hot goddess... I'm about as deep as a burned out pan cake without a pan... ;-)

No, you just keep insisting on your own agenda and repeating the same old ultra right wing stuff no matter what I say, so I figured it better to just let it rest.

BLACK POWER! ;-)

I still adore you, though!

Malcolm XXX

[hankhavelock]

And you want to imply WE are full of ourselves? That's rich...

No, I realize my answer to you was inappropriate and could be perceived as arrogant. I'm sorry. I'm actually a kinda nice guy and only leisurely arrogant :-) So I mean it, sorry if I offended you.

In my initial post I'm not critisizing America - merely attacking the latent fascism that I believe the Bush administration has been an exponent for. I believe I have given ample examples in other postings in this thread regarding my particular views in this regard, so I shall not bore you further with that.

That said, your own comment was kinda short and angry. None the less, my correct answer should, of course, have been as said just above.

Peace!

H

PS: Bear with me, please! English is NOT my first language, so I struggle along to make myself comprehensible.

[smolderingtemptress]

If it's your opinion, fine. But if you've allowed yourself to be influenced by the opinions of, oh, the rest of the world about Bush (who, though many of us dislike, is not the SOLE reason for all of our problems) you should step back and reconsider how informed you really may be.

[hankhavelock]

If it's your opinion, fine. But if you've allowed yourself to be influenced by the opinions of, oh, the rest of the world about Bush (who, though many of us dislike, is not the SOLE reason for all of our problems) you should step back and reconsider how informed you really may be.

Shouldn't we all? Point taken and thanks for enlightening me. Now peace and stop! Ok?

[jimnaseum]

Lemme pull this thread out of the HISTORY file to say how thrilled I am at Obama's choices for cabinet, etc. so far. When McCain chose Palin and Obama chose Biden, I was re-assured except for Biden's age, I'm not sure he can slip right in after 8 years and make CHANGE a 16 year dynasty. The SHARP selections he has made so far ...even though I'm not savvy enough to know any details, I know enough to see he's surrounding himself with supersmart people, agreed by everyone, I get a real good feeling that stuff is actually going to get done here in the States. Good stuff.

[TracyCoxx]

I also see some interesting things happening. People like Hank who are constantly harassed by his friends in Indonesia because he is white, and therefore must be accused of being a fascist Bush lover will no doubt be pleased to see that their savior Obama has kept Bush's Secretary of Defense. Obama the pacifist also will take our troops back to Afghanistan, and has made threats against Pakistan, and after being given the cold shoulder by Iran has vowed to deliver a 'devistating U.S. nuclear response against Iran' if Iran attacks Israel. Oh, and he says he will negotiate with Iran and offered economic aid if they agreed to drop their nuclear program. In other words, he's not dumb enough to follow his campaign promise of sitting at the table with Iran without preconditions.

On the socialism front, Obama says he will not increase taxes on the rich at this time. Apparently he's not dumb enough to follow the economic strategies he's campaigned on.

He is dumb enough to assign Daschle as secretary of Health & Human Services though.

[futaguy3]

I'm gunna go out on a limb and I'm sure I'll get banned for it so fuck it, here goes:
Barak Hussein Obama is going to be a horrific president for the United States but he is exactly what the world outside of which needs. He will bring out changes to America that will destroy the individualist capitalist nature of the people who founded it. He has already chosen the socialist cabinet that Bill Clinton chose when he was in office, save for the Sec. of Defense. All his talk about ending the war in Iraq was a lie because he knows he cannot afford to "lose" the war in name only because it will be bad for his party. He will destroy the medical establishment by prohibiting those who have payed in to the system their whole lives the ability to access it (ie- in socialist countries you are rationed healthcare, the elderly will be the first to be cancelled out). Barak Obama will ignore overt threats from the Russian federation and the Chinese "republic" all the while making the military a shadow of its former self, while claiming support for it and screaming that he supports them and all their missions or what ever but he will make them weaker and tie their hands in the face of those terrorists and authoritarian governemnts that do not restrict their soldiers. Only in modern America are soldiers tried for "war crimes" committed in the commission of their duties. I could probably go on but this is almost assuredly going to be edited by someone already. The fact of the matter is that Obama was elected because he was not a republican. George Bush was not a far right winger, he said it himself that he should govern from the center. In fact all his bailouts are testimony to the fact he is more socialist than any president ever. Obama was born black. What a freakin accomplishment. When people bash Sarah Palin, the epitomy of womanhood, they say she's a governor, Obama is a senator, as if her executive experience was nothing and his senatorial experience, his 1 term senatorial experience, was something so unbelievably great... I had a friend who was supposed to be quite intelligent and open minded. Well, I deduced after the fact that he did not want to vote for a republican, no matter what. If a perfect candidate in everyone's point of view ran against Obama but s/he called him/herself a republican, that person would have lost. Now then, I'll go back to looking for big dick shemales cause I'm a damned pervert and that's what gets me off... Just remember that when the muslim extremists take over, those of us who like what we all know we do will be among the first to go because we are the abominations to them. God help us all... BTW, no more blog rage, I won't even be reading it...

[jimnaseum]

Jeez, talk about your sore losers, McCain himself said that Obama has picked some marvelous people for his cabinet on the Letterman show tonight! Get over it! There are more Mexicans than Goldwater Republicans in the USA now. Knock off this "American Dream" crap and taste the new American Reality.
If you want to be taken seriously don't mention Sarah Palin. You betcha!

[TracyCoxx]

Jeez, talk about your sore losers, McCain himself said that Obama has picked some marvelous people for his cabinet on the Letterman show tonight!
No surprise there. McCain is unable to make a criticism of his former opponent in anything larger than a campaign rally. That cream-puff persona did nothing to get himself elected.

Get over it! There are more Mexicans than Goldwater Republicans in the USA now. Knock off this "American Dream" crap and taste the new American Reality.
If you want to be taken seriously don't mention Sarah Palin. You betcha!
What's wrong with the American Dream? I'd take that over the Mexican Dream any day.

[twistedone]

First of all, let me say, I don't like to mix politics with sex. They make very weird and twisted bed fellows. More so than I. LOL

About President elect Obama. In my book, the jury is still out on him, I'm taking a wait and see attitude. This may seem untrusting, however in my book, politicians in general, regardless of their party affiliation are untrustworthy. They all have their own agendas, and its screw the common man over as much as they can. When it comes to the honesty of our politicians, I ask myself this age old question. "How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving".

I am not going to say I'm a Bush fan either. I knew there would be trouble from him the moment he took his election results to the U.S. Supreme Court to win his first term. I didn't like him then, still don't know. But for that matter, I disliked both Gore and Kerry. And still do, and I certainly didn't want Hilliary Clinton in office either. I still have a sour taste in my mouth from the Clinton years, and some of the stunts he pulled. I'm hoping not to have a repeat performance with Obama.

I'll be the first to say I'm glad Bush is leaving, good riddance to bad rubbish. He's created more turmoil in this world than any terrorist could ever hope to achieve. Time for national and global stability, as well as amends to be made to countries that were insulted by Bush.

Citizens of the other countries, may I remind you, not every American supported Bush, not every American supported his policies, and certainly not every American ignored the fact that we were turning other countries against us. More Americans care than you realize.

To my fellow Americans. I've said this before, this is my story and I'm stickin to it. The government has failed us. But worst of all, we failed ourselves. Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. We are the government. Lets look and see what we DIDN'T do that caused our current predicament. Lets take responsibility to ensure it never happens again.

[jimnaseum]

When I was in Elementary School, it was W.A.S.P. all the way. It was great. Drug users, homos, Commies, beatniks, they all fell under the heading of "common criminals" and Blacks had their own little neighborhoods.
Right and wrong, law and order, you didn't even have to lock your doors at night. Even in the cities.
That's all changed now. Ozzie and Harriet are still around, but they've got money and live in Oklahoma.
"Leave it to Beaver" will always be my favorite TV show, but I can't deny that what's fair is fair and right is right.
Blacks, Gays, Legal Immigrants, and yes even Transsexuals deserve a piece of the American Pie.
If Obama doesn't deliver, vote him out! But I've got a real feeling that people are going to become believers.

[TracyCoxx]

White supremacy isn't what I think of when I think of the American Dream. When I think of the American Dream, I'm thinking of opportunities being available to anyone who works hard enough for it. I know it hasn't always been that way for all races, but it should be. That doesn't mean there should be affirmative action programs. But opportunities in the US should be made available to any legal US citizen who strives to achieve those opportunities.

If Obama doesn't deliver, vote him out! But I've got a real feeling that people are going to become believers.

How do you see Obama delivering? By giving handouts to those who haven't worked for what he will give them?

[jimnaseum]

By giving the Middle Class a level playing field. The middle class does all the work and pays all the taxes. When Tyrone buys a Coke he pays the Coca Cola Co's taxes. He pays the bottler's taxes. He pays the truck driver's taxes. He pays state tax, federal tax. If Tyrone ain't got no job, he's going to get high and rob a house. Maybe your house. Tyrone's going to go to jail so you can pay for that too.

[hankhavelock]

Jeez, talk about your sore losers, McCain himself said that Obama has picked some marvelous people for his cabinet on the Letterman show tonight! Get over it! There are more Mexicans than Goldwater Republicans in the USA now. Knock off this "American Dream" crap and taste the new American Reality.
If you want to be taken seriously don't mention Sarah Palin. You betcha!

Hehehe... well said!

And hopefully this marks the death of ultra conservatism in a way similar to what happened to communism a decade or two ago.

Time for a much more blended mindset - a wonderful shift of paradigm.

And in the end, isn't that truly what the socalled "American Dream" is all about? I mean, before it was hijacked by the military fascists who sort of indicate that to be a TRUE American with hand on heart, tears in the eyes and gun (and sexuality) in the closet you MUST be an ultra right winger believing in the "small-town-set" of values?

Hopefully all that will fade away and die out with the current believers.

Peace!

H

[Rachel]

Hey Hank! Who was it that ordered all that aid to your country after the tsunami?

[CreativeMind]

Jeez, talk about your sore losers, McCain himself said that Obama has picked some marvelous people for his cabinet on the Letterman show tonight! Get over it! There are more Mexicans than Goldwater Republicans in the USA now. Knock off this "American Dream" crap and taste the new American Reality. If you want to be taken seriously don't mention Sarah Palin. You betcha!

First of all, who cares what McCain has said or thinks? Certainly not anyone on the Right. For crying out loud, those of us who ARE Republicans were actually PISSED at McCain for NOT going after Obama hard enough during the election. As tiresome as it was to hear McCain sounding like a truly old man -- constantly saying "My Friends" every time he spoke -- what REALLY rubbed people on the Right the wrong way was that McCain spent as much time kissing Obama's ass as the media did. Frankly, McCain LOST my vote when one day -- about 2 or 3 weeks out from the election -- he was giving a speech in Ohio and someone got up and said something negative about Obama, which the crowd cheered on. But then in a truly stupefying political moment, McCain turned to the person (and the crowd) and actually said "Senator Obama is a good man. You have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency." And that's the fucking tone he had WHILE THE RACE WAS STILL ON. Frankly, the ONLY reason I voted for McCain was BECAUSE of Sarah Palin.

Then again, I felt bad for McCain. He was truly in a no-win situation. All along he realized he was up against a historic tide where obviously so many African-Americans were going to come out in force in order to elect Obama, all so they could put the first Black president in office. And the joke of that? Howard Stern did an amazing bit on the radio where he sent someone up to Harlem to ask people on the street WHY they were voting for Obama. At which point, the person would read off a list of various political positions to the people, to which they would get excited and say: "That's right! That's exactly what I believe, too! Barack's political positions are totally in tune with what I believe!"...

...The joke being, of course, that literally ALL of the statements that were read to the people were McCAIN's political positions on the issues.

As for Palin, I wouldn't be so dismissive of her if I were you. She's certainly going to be a future force to be reckoned with. You can betcha that.

First of all, SHE is what energized the Right wing base and even made it a race. SHE is what brought the Republicans and Conservatives together -- NOT McCain. Which brings us full circle to why no one on the right cares that McCain supports Obama's cabinet choices on Letterman -- Hell, McCain even being back on Letterman, once again to praise Obama, just shows how spineless he's now become in the end, how appeasing McCain has become about just wanting to be liked in the aftermath of things. If anything, Palin showed the most spine and character by now telling Oprah to fuck off and to pound any interview requests up her ass, after the way Oprah snubbed her during the actual race.

And second, keep these thoughts in mind, too. A recent poll showed that Palin remains the overwhelming choice of Republicans to run the next time around, only this time at the TOP of the ticket. But even more interesting was another poll recently showed that a whopping and truly astounding 78% of the American voters -- we're talking nearly 8 out of 10 voters, regardless of which side of the political aisle they come from -- felt Sarah Palin had been treated UNFAIRLY by the media and she did NOT get fair coverage at all during the election. An astounding 8 out of 10 people, now post-election, feel the media did not do it's job and they showed a clear bias. Which means the next time around, people are NOT going to let the media get away with the smear tactics they did this time...nor will they let the media whitewash the Obama side of things.

In fact, here's another interesting note: the glow is clearly off Obama already. A poll released this weekend showed Obama's approval rating was now down to 65%. On the surface, that might sound high and good -- but keep in mind that with a country essentially split at this point between those who lean Right and those who lean Left, that means Obama now only has a 15 point margin before he hits the tipping point where literally HALF of the country would be AGAINST him. A lot of Obama's fall from grace has to do with the economy (polls show people don't think he's taking an active enough role in things), plus the Illinois Senate seat-selling scandal is also contributing to things.

Plus, it's become obvious that many reporters are now vocally...and FINALLY...asking tough and honest questions about "what" Obama knew with regards to the dirty politics that went on in Chicago (as a Congressman and then a Senator). And as one commentator put it today on the news, this scandal - as more and more dirt and names come out -- is now threatening the tarnish the inauguration. Plus, when Obama gets sworn in in January...and the economy is then still utter shit in February, with more and more people still being laid off...the general public won't be blaming Bush anymore. They'll be looking right at the Oval Office and the Democratically controlled Congress and saying "Okay, NOW we start blaming YOU."

[CreativeMind]

When I was in Elementary School, it was W.A.S.P. all the way...That's all changed now. Ozzie and Harriet are still around, but they've got money and live in Oklahoma. "Leave it to Beaver" will always be my favorite TV show, but I can't deny that what's fair is fair and right is right. Blacks, Gays, Legal Immigrants, and yes even Transsexuals deserve a piece of the American Pie. If Obama doesn't deliver, vote him out! But I've got a real feeling that people are going to become believers.

And yet the total irony to your statement is that it WAS the Black and Hispanic communities that turned out in droves on election day and squashed Gay marriage in the California election. THEY were the ones who became the deciding factor, not W.A.S.P.y white people.

Gee, I guess Obama's "more fair and tolerant" America is gonna need some retooling already, eh?

[Rachel]

And yet the total irony to your statement is that it WAS the Black and Hispanic communities that turned out in droves on election day and squashed Gay marriage in the California election. THEY were the ones who became the deciding factor, not W.A.S.P.y white people.

Gee, I guess Obama's "more fair and tolerant" America is gonna need some retooling already, eh?

As they say, "Time will tell".

[ila]

First of all.........

An excellent post CreativeMind. I'm glad to see a more in-depth analysis of events both pre and post election.

[randolph]

Apparently Creativemind worships the Limbaugh-Palin reactionary mentality. McCain was simply trying to be a decent human being trying to calm down the hate filled uber conservatives on the right. Palin is a dark dangerous cloud on the horizon. If this country is to survive as a free accepting society we need to foster reason and humanity.

[TracyCoxx]

By giving the Middle Class a level playing field. The middle class does all the work and pays all the taxes. When Tyrone buys a Coke he pays the Coca Cola Co's taxes. He pays the bottler's taxes. He pays the truck driver's taxes. He pays state tax, federal tax. If Tyrone ain't got no job, he's going to get high and rob a house. Maybe your house. Tyrone's going to go to jail so you can pay for that too.

Why would Tyrone get high and rob a house if he loses his job? My dad lost his job. I have a friend who lost his job. They don't get high and rob someone's house. They do whatever they can to find work, any kind of work, and make it work somehow, until they can find a job that will pay the bills. Maybe Tyrone needs to be in jail.

[jimnaseum]

In Europe past a hundred years ago, leaders were like Fathers, their decisions were based on the preserving the "fabric" of the society. People wanted a leader they could bow down to, or salute, not some elected civil servant.
The President should represent ALL of the citizens, not just the Bill OReilly half, I'm glad you love your dads, I'm glad Ann Coulter's dad treated her like a little princess, I'm glad you are proud of half the Country.
If I were you I'd be a Republican too. But COME ON!!! Dwight Eisenhower would throw up if he saw the GOP now. Sarah Palin?
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. This is a Nation of Laws. People are People. History is never wrong. You knuckleheads have the right to think anything you want. Jesus was right, but he could have used a good lawyer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4dsB4F6puM

[TracyCoxx]

In Europe past a hundred years ago, leaders were like Fathers, their decisions were based on the preserving the "fabric" of the society. People wanted a leader they could bow down to, or salute, not some elected civil servant.Europe can keep their kings and Hitlers.

The President should represent ALL of the citizens, not just the Bill OReilly half,
And not just of 13.4% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States) of society either.

I'm glad you love your dads, I'm glad Ann Coulter's dad treated her like a little princess, I'm glad you are proud of half the Country.
If I were you I'd be a Republican too. But COME ON!!! Dwight Eisenhower would throw up if he saw the GOP now. Sarah Palin?
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. This is a Nation of Laws. People are People. History is never wrong. You knuckleheads have the right to think anything you want. Jesus was right, but he could have used a good lawyer.

Jesus who? That guy from 2000 years ago? I'm not concerned with him. I am also not a Republican (i.e. not a bible thumper and not socially conservative). What have I said that you object to? That I don't support affirmative action? That I think someone who gets high and robs people when the chips are down rather than working to become a productive member of society should be in jail? I doubt HALF of America believes people should not be held accountable for their actions.

[jimnaseum]

To be honest for a minute, Tracy, I think we've roamed into the PERSONAL area here, where it's about winning an argument.
I think all people have positive characteristics like intelligence, faith, honor, empathy, charity, hope, happiness, the list goes on, all the stuff that makes life worth living. But every INDIVIDUAL has 4 or 5 defects, ..personality flaw, sin, physical disability, foolish pride, laziness, whatever, that define who that person is. I'd say most people go to there grave with some of them that are deeply ingrained in their personality.
These FLAWS will not be litigated away by the Supreme Court. Or by who is President.
But a robust economy can put people to work. A sound foreign policy can prevent nuclear war. A medical plan like Europe can heal people! And social security can insure people a basic human dignity when they get too old to work.
Carrying your own weight, keeping what's yours, that was a real good plan years ago when this country was being built. It's called survival. But corrupt oilmen and Wall St Traders are mutating "self-reliance" into "legally stealing" and this country has to guarantee each citizen a realistic plan for equal opportunity. To Thrive. It's called survival.
I am proud of this country for electing Barack Obama. Bush was a goddamn liar. Debate that!

[Bionca]

And yet the total irony to your statement is that it WAS the Black and Hispanic communities that turned out in droves on election day and squashed Gay marriage in the California election. THEY were the ones who became the deciding factor, not W.A.S.P.y white people.

Gee, I guess Obama's "more fair and tolerant" America is gonna need some retooling already, eh?

Blacks voted 70% in favor of prop 8, Hispanics roughly 56%. Blacks account for 6-10% of the voting population in California. Could blacks and Hispanics have turned he tide in such a close election? sure. However I think a 50% voter turnout in San Fran, 65% of married people, 81% of Protestants and Evangelicals, 64% of Catholics, 68% of voters 65+ are just as worthy of blame. The hundreds of thousands of dollars from the VERY white Mormon church could have had a little to do with it.

Also, the lack of coalition building from within the G&L movement. The assumption that blacks and Hispanics would just vote the way they wanted. The quickness the "black church" ot blamed the day after election day. The freedom with which the "N" word got used in West Hollywood. That tells me that maybe there needs to be some reflection and some serious thought. It's not a myth that the national GLb...t groups are seen as male, white, wealthy, not trans* - it's because the gay white boys really like to throw their own party (with their cis-lesbian sisters as backup)

[TracyCoxx]

To be honest for a minute, Tracy, I think we've roamed into the PERSONAL area here, where it's about winning an argument.
I think all people have positive characteristics like intelligence, faith, honor, empathy, charity, hope, happiness, the list goes on, all the stuff that makes life worth living. But every INDIVIDUAL has 4 or 5 defects, ..personality flaw, sin, physical disability, foolish pride, laziness, whatever, that define who that person is. I'd say most people go to there grave with some of them that are deeply ingrained in their personality.

Well personally sure I would love for the government to pay for my health care, and pay for my housing, etc etc... But I'm realistic. I'm thinking how policies like this would translate into the real world. And it looks something like tax payers owing $700 billion to bail out Wall Street because 2 democrat presidents and fanatical left wing political groups like ACORN thought it would be a good idea to give loans to people who did not have a way to pay the loans back. You know... level the playing field... spread the wealth. It sounds so noble. But think beyond yourself for a minute and look at the big picture. The $700 billion bailout is only the beginning. As you can see with the auto industry. They want theirs. Some other industry will be next. This is madness.

These FLAWS will not be litigated away by the Supreme Court. Or by who is President.
But a robust economy can put people to work. A sound foreign policy can prevent nuclear war. A medical plan like Europe can heal people! And social security can insure people a basic human dignity when they get too old to work.
Carrying your own weight, keeping what's yours, that was a real good plan years ago when this country was being built. It's called survival. But corrupt oilmen and Wall St Traders are mutating "self-reliance" into "legally stealing" and this country has to guarantee each citizen a realistic plan for equal opportunity. To Thrive. It's called survival.
I am proud of this country for electing Barack Obama. Bush was a goddamn liar. Debate that!

I would be happy to. Start a new thread if you want to get into that. As for the rest, no thanks. I've seen how Jimmy Carter almost ruined this country with his socialist mentality (i.e. over 10 percent unemployment, double digit inflation rates, double digit interest rates, gas lines). Then along comes Reagan with his economically conservative policies and completely reverses all of that. It wasn't that long ago. Why wouldn't it work now?

You forget one thing about Europe's socialist health care. They make use of medicines and surgical procedures developed here in the US. If the US mirrors European health care, then there will be no source of innovation like we have now.

[jimnaseum]

You win Tracy, you're right. You've worn me down, I can't fight anymore.
Palin-Palin 2012. Drill Baby Drill!

[TracyCoxx]

Geez, first Obama, now Palin? Your voting card should be revoked :p

[Rachel]

Hank! This swanky American is still waiting for you to reply to my question!

[hankhavelock]

Hank! This swanky American is still waiting for you to reply to my question!

As so many did, you chose to take my initial question as a general critique of America - some Americans tend to react that way... maybe for a good reason.

Well, it wasn't. Merely a critique of Geo Bush and his corrupt regime - the most insanely incompetent group of self-servers that this world has seen in modern time.

And I don't find any hints of the catastrophic tsunami that hit South East Asia particularly relevant in this regard, I'm sorry... who is pulling the money from oil in this country anyways? Maybe your country...??? And should we compare figures here?

Besides, could Geo & Dick even handle your own horrible thing in good old New Orleans? Nope... basicly, that administration has done nothing good, and they will for ever be remembered as the evil disaster they truly were... and stand as a glorified example of the electoral mistake that your people made... with a little help from a corrupt judicial system that made it possible in the first place...

But in 36 hours they'll be HISTORY, the nasty buggers!

So let's rejoice and be HAPPY! There's a new sheriff in town!

GOBAMA!

H

[St. Araqiel]

Once the AWB returns with a vengeance and concealed-carry is trashed, there's gonna be hell to pay. Responsible gun owners (including would-be's like yours truly) will be pissed. Obama will have made his biggest fuck-up ever.

[randolph]

Right on Hank, but I don't want them to be history,
I want them tried for WAR CRIMES!:frown::frown::frown::frown::frown:

[marlowe]

Well, Obama time is upon us. It'll be impossible to live up to the hype but let's HOPE that we can look back in four or eight years time and praise him for harnessing America's strengths to promote a more peaceful and positive world, steering away from the climate of FEAR that has dominated the last eight years.

[hankhavelock]

Right on Hank, but I don't want them to be history,
I want them tried for WAR CRIMES!:frown::frown::frown::frown::frown:

I agree - they would deserve it... as Jesse Ventura said in some interview... "George W. Bush will leave office totally happy and "ignorant" of the damage he has done. He will ride out in the sunset the good old American way and live happily for ever after..."

He's history! Thank God!

So let's focus on the tasks ahead and be amazed that we are being part of history being made here - beyond any presidential election probably EVER!

Enjoy the inauguration!

Congratulations, America! Congratulations, World!

H

[St. Araqiel]

Blazing Saddles, anyone?:lol:

[randolph]

I agree - they would deserve it... as Jesse Ventura said in some interview... "George W. Bush will leave office totally happy and "ignorant" of the damage he has done. He will ride out in the sunset the good old American way and live happily for ever after..."

He's history! Thank God!

So let's focus on the tasks ahead and be amazed that we are being part of history being made here - beyond any presidential election probably EVER!

Enjoy the inauguration!

Congratulations, America! Congratulations, World!

H

I like the image of the helicopter on the tarmac, with Bush in it and Obama and his wife and Biden and his wife standing there waving goodbye.
Thank God he is leaving! The worst President in our history!

[smc]

As I wrote on inauguration day in my Facebook status, I am "wondering how long the illusions of the day will last in the minds of my celebrating friends."

[phazon]

i bet u feel dumb now lol

[CreativeMind]

Right on Hank, but I don't want them to be history,
I want them tried for WAR CRIMES!:frown::frown::frown::frown::frown:

I agree - they would deserve it... as Jesse Ventura said in some interview... "George W. Bush will leave office totally happy and "ignorant" of the damage he has done. He will ride out in the sunset the good old American way and live happily for ever after..."

Well, you can give up that pipe dream right now.
Never gonna happen -- frankly, never stood a chance of happening.

The truth is SO many people on BOTH sides of the political aisle voted for and supported the Iraq War right from the start that ANY sort of trial would involve bringing countless numbers of people to the stand -- all of whom don't want to be anywhere near a courtroom to protect their own self-interests.

Hell, just look at the big news of Friday: it turns out the one leading Democrat, Rep. Conyers, who was vocally pushing for Bush to be brought up on charges, has now been revealed to have his own secret that he was trying to bury and hide: namely, his wife could now be facing a criminal bribery indictment for abusing his office's power to secure financial deals. Gee, maybe it's just me, but the notion that his own wife could be soon standing in front of a judge herself sort of tarnishes the image of him then grandstanding and saying "I'm all for the law and truth to come out!"

Here's the bottom line: everyone who is on the opposite side of aisle to the party currently in power always dreams of tearing the other side down. That's just basic human nature and wanting to see "your side" win. But sad to say, in this day and age, political venom has reached such astounding levels that many people no longer want to see someone just losing their job or being voted out of office -- instead they dream of some nutty Watergate-level conspiracy taking place that is going to tear down absolutely everything in sight. Like a tsunami, it will literally just wipe the other side completely out so that "your side" can now take over for years to come. And unfortunately, Hollywood has done a sensational job (post-Watergate) of selling this bogus idea of all-powerful and all-encompassing conspiracies existing out there, when the truth is there really are none.

The truth is NO administration EVER wants to go after a previous one, simply because it means you THEN expose yourself or your party. You want to go after Bush? Fine -- but then you expose all of the Clinton years that led up to the war, which means the Democrats would actually be putting other Democrats on the firing line. Or look at what's happening now: someone like Conyers wants Karl Rove to testify before Congress, yet Rove is now citing executive privilege and willing to fight it out in court. That puts Obama in a giant bind...and a truly uncomfortable spot...because if he backs a nut job like Conyers and says "Okay, put Rove on the stand" that instantly sets a legal precedent and means over the next 4 years all of HIS advisors can now be made to testify in front of Congress -- or worse, once he's out of office (and, yes, that day will come. After all, we didn't elect him King!) THEN all of his people can be made to testify and reveal confidential information, which I'm sure will include many a conversation that even Mr. Nice Guy Obama would prefer to see kept buried and private.

Politics has too many off-shoots, too many people involved on the Federal level from ALL political parties, which is why everyone will now treat the Bush/Iraq War years as simply something that happened... as something that will be pushed aside now, in the midst of the global economic crisis... and people will prefer for it to simply be something that history will be the final judge on, and not some silly courtroom where ultra-Leftists, consumed in their lingering hate for Bush, are still hoping to get at him even though he's long gone.

For crying out loud, a recent poll showed that a whopping 84% of the American people DON'T support any type of Iraq War hearings or any type of pursuit of Bush for "war crimes", feeling it would only hurt the country and it would be a total waste of money. As I said, they feel we should just move on now since we have this economic crisis to deal with. So, as much as you guys would love to see Bush brought up on "war crimes", keep in mind that 8 out 10 people disagree with you. That's a pretty fucking big number of people that would instantly come up to you and say "What the hell is with you guys? Leave it alone already. We have no interest in this."

[CreativeMind]

As I wrote on inauguration day in my Facebook status, I am "wondering how long the illusions of the day will last in the minds of my celebrating friends."

Well, considering that a poll just released shows that only 42% of the country now support the Obama economic plan, which means that 58% of the country feels it's a waste of money and it WON'T help the economy...

And considering that other polls show that (on average) about 60% of the American people now feel that CONGRESS is to blame for the economic crisis, every bit as much as Wall Street, for stupidly wasting money on stimulus packages and pork barreling it -- such as Nancy Pelosi wanting to spend $400 million (400 MILLION!!!) on condoms and birth control because, hey, that will really stimulate things (yes, bad pun intended)....

And considering it's been a Democratically controlled Congress for 2 1/2 years now, which means they controlled things going back BEFORE this crisis emerged...

...It's safe to say that with each passing day, as thousands and thousands of people continue to get laid off or lose their homes or see their bank accounts drained, that the glow of Inauguration Day has ALREADY passed.

Always remember rule number one in politics: EVERYONE votes their pocketbook. And no matter how big a smile or friendly a guy he might be, Obama now has to SOLVE this economic crisis, which mind you has escalated to being a GLOBAL crisis. So, in the coming year, Obama has two roads he can go down. It's that simple. He either proves his Harvard brilliance and the economy rights itself, in which case he seals his re-election in 4 years right off the bat...

...Or the economy continues to stay low for another few years, needing time to re-balance itself naturally over time, in which case he suffers the same fate of Jimmy Carter and being the guy who was President when economic times truly sucked, in which case he'll be voted out of office in a landslide (like Carter) because people will blame him for everything.

Bottom line: the "glow of Inauguration" (even a historic one like Obama's, being the first African-American President) will mean NOTHING to the average American if they're out of a job or can't meet their bills.

[randolph]

During WWII I wonder how many Germans wanted Hitler tried for war crimes.

The meltdown? The consensus is that Greenspan was the key player. The conservative fundamentalist philosophy of Milton Friedman that the Republicans and Greenspan worshiped is what led to this debacle.

[CreativeMind]

During WWII I wonder how many Germans wanted Hitler tried for war crimes.

Just before you go out on TOO wild a limb, let me get this straight -- now you're comparing any Americans (like myself) who supported the Iraq War OR, as I cited before, the 80-plus percent of Americans who DON'T want to go after Bush, who have NO interest in it AT ALL and who just want to move on, to Nazi Germans???

The meltdown? The consensus is that Greenspan was the key player. The conservative fundamentalist philosophy of Milton Friedman that the Republicans and Greenspan worshiped is what led to this debacle.

I would hardly say that's the consensus. But, hey, I'm also sure that the banking regulations that the Clinton era imposed (for example, where banks started to be rated by the government and thus were literally FORCED into making unsecured loans to unqualified and low income people in the name of "social justice") -- not to mention all the corruption and lying that people like Dodd or Frank (democrats both) both participated in as heads of Congressional banking committees -- played NO part at all in the collapse. Nope! It was ALL the Republicans fault and their philosophy, this despite the fact that Democrats (as I noted before) had ALREADY been in control of Congress for 2 years BEFORE the crisis hit.

So, feel free to keep singing that Greenspan/Republican tune and see how far it gets you since all of America is more than fully aware that it's now Obama (democrat) in charge of a Senate (democrat) and a House of Representatives (democrat) who are totally controlling things -- and thus credit AND/OR blame falls squarely on their shoulders. And given what I pointed out before -- namely, that only 40% of the American people now feel the government is doing the right thing and 60% now feel the democrats in Congress are actually making things WORSE -- it's gonna be pretty tough to blame the Republicans much longer.

As I noted before as well, with every passing day...as thousands and thousands of people continue to lose their jobs and homes and bank accounts...or as this meltdown continues to spiral around the world, prompting unrest overseas and protests and violence or whatever...this falls squarely on the Democrats now and THEIR ideological practices. And frankly, they're already running into trouble since not too many people are drinking the kool-aid they're trying to sell these days, with such ridiculously silly ideas such as spending half a billion dollars on condoms for kids or giving honeybees insurance or re-sodding some Washington DC monument lawns is going to give them back their jobs or revive the economy or put money back into their lost retirement accounts.

Bottom line: who do you REALLY think the average American is going to hold accountable come midterm elections IF things don't get substantially better? Do you actually believe they'll be sitting at home...broke and unemployed...and thinking, "Damn that Greenspan! This is STILL all his fault!" OR do you think that maybe...just maybe...they'll be turning on their TVs, seeing Obama and the democrats all over, and find themselves thinking "These guys told me if I put them in power they'd fix everything. And look where I am now!"

Me, I'm going with the latter. Like I said before, people always vote their pocketbook. And since most economists now predict it will take up to 3 years before we see any kind improvement, that isn't good news for the Dems. Then again, Jimmy Carter was the shittiest President ever (yes, even worse than Bush) and even he still goes around saying what a great job he did, so I guess Carter is proof positive that there's always going to be utterly delusional people out there...

[McLuvinladyboys]

I think it's a big step forward that Barack Obama will soon be the first black guy to lose a US presidential election.

people so quickly forget jessie jackson

[new believer]

What distresses me (as an American Libertarian) is that at minimal 30% of votes that are in the democractic favor are fraudulent. i.e. multiple ,dead, non citizens and 'made up' voters. Yet they get away with it because of apathy,stupidity and fear of onslaught by the very anti Republican media. Republicans are not saints by any measure but Democrats are definitly demons in halo's. Many Republicans if given a chance are much as Democrats for example to 'look the other way' towards a individuals lifestyles. Can anyone imagine Republicans dis-owning their gay son's and daughters. Even famous one's like Reagan and Cheney admit to their own children's choice's as their own private matter and have given love and support regardless. What Republicans take heat on is 'not giving ADDED ' rights and privileges such as affirmitive action. That in itself is discrimination. Murder is murder,theft is theft and so on. When a white male kills another white male for money that is a hate crime(he hated that the victim had money he hadn't). Where I want to go with this I have no clue. But I left the Democratic party long after they sold me out and just after I discovered that they play on and use fear from every voter out there to grab self serving power and wealth. I'll challange anyone to list any legislation that took any action to strip anyone of any rights protected by the Constitution. Democrats have. Immigration bill=1967, rights of self defense,from 1968 to current(remember the looting/killing and raping during Katrina) it was a Democrat who dis-armed everyone from their ONLY means of protection. And now,even as Obama speaks of 'change' his stimulus deal allows corporate theives to still get massive bonuses all the while his mouth says otherwise. Get the details and confirm it yourself. I have. Hey, I'm just a libertarian, my party cannot change anything while the 'masses are asses'(an old American phrase used by old currupt democrats over 100 years ago meaning you CAN fool anyone and those you can't, have short memories.). As for one of my best phrases, "Live long and prosper" .

[randolph]

I am amazed we have hard core Republicans on this site. If my memory serves me well, Senior Bush stated that Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Atheists should be denied the right to vote!:censored:
Anyway, I suppose Republicans will continue to worship Rush Limbaugh as the Germans worshiped Hitler. It is a mean spirited intolerant destructive view of the world which will perpetuate the misery we are in.:frown:

[randolph]

The nation's first African-American president attended his first Alfalfa Club Dinner as commander in chief last night, and Barack Obama got into the spirit of the evening with jokes aimed at the dinner itself, his famously profane chief of staff and even himself.

According to the White House, among the jokes the president told were:

- "I am seriously glad to be here tonight at the annual Alfalfa dinner. I know that many you are aware that this dinner began almost one hundred years ago as a way to celebrate the birthday of General Robert E. Lee. If he were here with us tonight, the general would be 202 years old. And very confused."

- "Now, this hasn't been reported yet, but it was actually Rahm's idea to do the swearing-in ceremony again. Of course, for Rahm, every day is a swearing-in ceremony."

"But don't believe what you read. Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff) is a real sweetheart.

"No, it's true. Every week the guy takes a little time away to give back to the community. Just last week he was at a local school, teaching profanity to poor children."

- "But these are the kind of negotiations you have to deal with as president. In just the first few weeks, I've had to engage in some of the toughest diplomacy of my life. And that was just to keep my BlackBerry.

"I finally agreed to limit the number of people who could e-mail me. It's a very exclusive list. How exclusive?

"Everyone look at the person sitting on your left. Now look at the person sitting on your right. None of you have my e-mail address."

As the Associated Press notes, among the others in attendance at the Capitol Hilton in Washington were 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, a senator from Arizona, and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The dinner is supposed to be off-the-record, but reports of what was said always leak out.

Politico reports that:

Looking to Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent-turned McCain supporter, Obama told the Connecticut senator he had no hard feelings.

The door is always open, Obama assured Lieberman, who observes the Sabbath, so feel to drop by -- any Saturday afternoon.

To Palin, Obama expressed surprise to see her with such members of the Washington elite she railed against during the campaign. Or, as he termed it in language Palin is familiar with, "palling around with this crew."

The Washington Post says that Lieberman, who also spoke, "noted that former vice president Richard B. Cheney injured himself while moving into his new home, according to a source inside the dinner. 'I had no idea waterboards were so heavy,' Lieberman quipped."

And, the Post reports:

The incoming club president, Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo. reminded guests that a newspaper recently published a list of the 25 people most responsible for the global economic meltdown. "You know who you are," he said, according to the source. "And it's good to see you here tonight."