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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Oh so nothing could possibly change from 2002-2004?

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.

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.

VoteforChange.com
 

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

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.

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:

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!

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.

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

From the sublime to the ridiculous...

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:

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

...and then you woke up...

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.

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.

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?

We'll find out about Gay marriage on Election Day
 

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You watch too much Fox news.

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

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:

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

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

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/f...dia.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.

Obama :) 08

Unfortunately

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:

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.

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.

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

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

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

You never answered my question from a while back. What has the US done that makes your life a living hell in Indonesia?

Fascism is a totalitarian and nationalist ideology which is against both socialism and communism, and supports a so called 'Third Position'. How does this relate to Republicans?

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.

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.

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

A Heaven sent right - You can't be serious

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%

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?

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!

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."

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.

Thank you :) And hello 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:
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.

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

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.

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..?

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.

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.

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

Oh ok. Gotcha

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

It doesn't look so optimistic for Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran. Obama and Biden have both rattled the sword with regards to those countries.

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...

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)

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.

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.

Capitalism will do just fine.

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

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.

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?

Again, 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.

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.

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.

The rich here donate more to charity than anyone else in the world.

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?

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!

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

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?

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...

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

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

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

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'.

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

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


:turnoff:

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.

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

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:

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

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

Sure hope not.

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.