Barack Obama
 

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

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

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.

America gets the president it deserves.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1963 Dallas
 

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.

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.

the second gunman on the grassy noel

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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....bama-36389.jpg

In Touch With the Middle Class?
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obama Short Bio
 

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

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.

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.

Is Barack Obama a SOCIALIST? Huh???

Thats what TracyCoxx just implied. :p

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! ;)

And this one is for Hillary and Obama.
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.

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..._b_122491.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2.html?sub=new

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

No argument there. This is indeed very scary.

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.

Your Avatar
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

"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.

Your Picture (s)
 

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.

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?

Ah, some kind of rapport at last!

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!

Huh?
 

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?

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.

It's all about juggling the numbers
 

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? ;)

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

This from someone who would slit someone's throat and toss them in a ditch.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

The Ant Bully
 

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.

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.

Image is all
 

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 ?

Should women rule ?
 

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.

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...

we desperately need a third party

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

Anything is better than Bush

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

Yeah me too LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...olmes-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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.