Biden & Palin Debate

[Jag_Warrior]

For those who watched the debate, what did you think of the performances by Biden and Palin?

I have to say, Palin performed MUCH better than I expected... mainly because I didn't expect much from her. I thought that both candidates scored hits on the other and neither floundered or suffered "deer in the headlights" moments. I was thoroughly confused by her belief that the Constitution gives the Vice President "special powers". That made me wonder if Dick Cheney wasn't one of her debate coaches. But I'd still call this debate a tie, even though she seemed overly coached , IMO. And since expectations seemed to be SO low for her, that probably counts as a win for Palin. Imagine Team Force India finishing on the same lap as Scuderia Ferrari.

I still wouldn't vote for her for anything higher than dog catcher, but I give her props on her debate performance, despite the fact that she (mis)pronounces "nuclear" the same as Duhbya Bush. Do neocons have a genetic defect or speech impediment that causes them to say nukyuler?

So good job, Sarah. And remember, the good people of Alaska need ya back ASAP. :p :

[Hawkmoon]

Why do you guys spend so much time on the Vice Presidential candidates?

I hear stuff like people aren't going to vote for McCain because Palin doesn't have enough experience. WTF? What has Palin's experience of lack there of got to do with McCain's ability to run the country? Same goes for the other side.

Of course, I come from a country that treats politicians as a necessary evil and the Prime Minister as just the bloke who happens to lead the government. If he goes under a bus, well there's plenty more where he came from.

[Jag_Warrior]

Why do you guys spend so much time on the Vice Presidential candidates?

I hear stuff like people aren't going to vote for McCain because Palin doesn't have enough experience. WTF? What has Palin's experience of lack there of got to do with McCain's ability to run the country? Same goes for the other side.

McCain is 72 years old and is not exactly a picture of good health. While I wish no ill on ANY of the candidates, with a McCain win, there is a distinct possibility that Palin might wind up as President of the U.S.

McCain is not really a stereotypical neocon. Typically, he hasn't run with that mob. Palin is one of them. She is their poster girl. I look forward to the day when this great nation can rid itself of the neocon disease that has taken us backwards economically and socially over the past decade or so.

It was Ronald Reagan who said, "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

The "conservatism" he described is not the neoconservatism that has plagued our nation since the early 90's, when the big spending, nation building, civil liberties hating, Israel before America, bible thumping, ex-Trotskyites pretty much took over the GOP. And if that is the type of person that John McCain would put one heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States of America, then I would burn my ballot before I would vote for him.

[L5->R5/CR]

I feel that Palin's performance was as expected.

Many expected her to go down in flames, which, was simply foolish.

She did a good job of standing her ground on issues that she should have some footing on and deflecting the question, or flat out not addressing the topic, on issues on which she was sure to flounder.

The reality is that Palin was never going to be able to be strong on all of the issues of the debate. The moderator and Biden let her off the hook on addressing the question/topic early which allowed her to cover up her short comings.

What I love is her continual touting of her credentials as an energy and oil expert when many industry political consultation ad research firms, as well as many political specialists on the industry regard her "expertise" about as low as they could without being inflamatory...


On and VP debates hardly ever matter but we have never had an election in which there was such a real possibility that the VP would be forced to take over the country.

[BDunnell]

As an outsider, I think this again shows up the deep flaws in the format of these debates in the US. They have become such a major element of each election without having much (or any) substance to them at all, appearing instead to be a forum for rehearsed grandstanding. How much does anybody actually learn about the candidates participating?

My main objection is that the interviewing is so tame compared with what the candidates would get over here in the UK. It's often been suggested that we should have Prime Ministerial debates on TV at election time, and this has occasionally come up as an issue in campaigns. I say 'No thanks'! Someone like Sarah Palin should not be able to shine to even the slightest degree in such a forum. It should be an absolute bearpit.

[Mark]

I don't know what the level of scrutiny is in the USA? Certainly in the UK we have the politicians doing the rounds of the likes of the Politics Show, Newsnight et al, where the interviews are nearly always of a confrontational nature (some more so that others). And we get to see most of the potential cabinet put through the ringer, I just wonder if this is the same in the USA?

[Dave B]

I'm just starting to watch it now, I'd like the opportunity to make my own mind up rather than be led by the numerous reports this morning.

However I do agree with the points raised by Ben and Mark: these debates are little more than a test of the candidates' memories and public-speaking skills as they are rehearsed for weeks in advance.

Palin in particular has been out of the public eye cramming like crazy for this like some A-level student the day before their exams.

I'd love the two of them to come to the UK and onto The Today Programme or Question Time, I've a feeling that neither of them would acquit themselves particularly well.

[Mark]

I guess I have that as a broader question in general about US politics. Do you get politicians appearing on the equivalent of Question Time etc. In the UK we regularly get cabinet ministers every week, the prime minister less often but usually every few months he'll pop up on some programme.

[Dave B]

Ten minutes in and she's already mentioned "hockey mums" twice. :s

[Dave B]

"I may not answer all the questions in the way which you or the moderator would like, but I'm going to speak straight to the American people".

Palin's finally worked out how politics works - never giving a straight answer - but instead of using that knowledge to her advantage she's given her tactic away 15 minutes in to the debate.

[Tomi]

Strange debate really, in the part i did watch both the questions and answers was very "thin", looked like a politics for children program.

[Dave B]

It was cringeworthy at times, both candidates giving pre-prepared speeches and ducking the question in favour of talking about their own agenda.

Palin put my teeth on edge with her constant folksy references and use of words like "heck", "darnit" and her talk of hockey mums. She also did a phenomenal job of avoiding questions and coming over as personable. I lost count of the times she claimed to have an understanding of the issues because she's a "mom".

Biden seemed to have a better grasp of the facts and figures, didn't take the easy route of making Palin look stupid, and presented a more sober and businesslike persona. However I don't think he did much to endear himself to a floating voter.

If I had to summarise it I'd say Biden answered the questions more admirably but Palin put on the better performance.

What worries me is some of the media saying that Palin "won" as she made no major gaffes. Good lord, were expectations of a VP candidate really that low?

Now I really want to see the pair of the - and Obama and McCain - given a proper grilling and probing under real pressure, not in a glorified media stunt.

[Mark]

Indeed the standard opening questioning we get here is usually along the lines of

"You're a crap leader, your party is crap and your policies are rediculous, aren't they?".

Do they ever get questions like that put to them?

[Dave B]

If you want a classic example of a politician refusing to give a straight answer, you can do no better than 4 minutes into this famous clip:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0rzVoBolN2c

Or Boris refusing to give the cost of a bendy-bus:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vRRYDVaXdaA

How I'd love to see Palin on the receiving end of a Paxman grilling!

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Dave Brockman"]

Palin put my teeth on edge with her constant folksy references and use of words like "heck", "darnit" and her talk of hockey mums. She also did a phenomenal job of avoiding questions and coming over as personable. I lost count of the times she claimed to have an understanding of the issues because she's a "mom".

QUOTE]


Thats all so misogynist Dave, why not give the gal a crack at it. If there were more women in politics then we mightnt be in this shi+ stew.

[Dave B]

Thats all so misogynist Dave, why not give the gal a crack at it. If there were more women in politics then we mightnt be in this shi+ stew.
The idea that "the gal" should be given a chance based purely on her gender makes a mockery of the whole equal-opportunities ideal.

She's being considered for one of the most important and powerful jobs on the planet, and if she proves incapable then no factor - including her gender - should prevent her from being told to sling her hook.

[Lousada]

Everytime an important, slightly more difficult question came up, Palin started babbling about something else. Like on Bidens medical plans, she didn't reply but began about tax cuts. About Iraq-Iran-Afganistan-Pakistan, I didn't really get what she actually was saying in regards to policy. Talking about education, the most part she went on about her brother who is teacher and let's say hi to everyone in third grade, again: what were her points? Cleverly evading the subject when asked about what extra powers the vp should get, while not really explaining what powers the vp has now to begin with either. Also she dragged 'energy', 'maverick' and 'Wasila' in about every non-relevant subject.

Biden on the other had was straight to the point, used plenty of facts and did not evade questions. I thought he did a whole lot better than Obama and McCain did last week.

What to me is the most strange thing about these debates, is that there is so little interaction between the candidates. Last week McCain didn't even look at Obama, while last night Palin was winking in the camera most of the time, totally ignoring Biden. Not that both democrates were much better in that respect. They gave one or two tries to some direct debating but were mostly happy with the status quo. I think that the politicians in my country would eat eachothers flesh if one of them behaved like either McCain, Palin, Obama or Biden in the debate. Plus, the moderators over here would never allow going offtopic so much.

Final point, you got to love the 'greatest political team on television' that CNN touts itself with. For example Rollins gave 48! plussus to Palin during the debate which was more than 4 other analyzers each gave to Biden and Palin combined. The sixth analyzer that was from the democratic party however, gave 37 plusses to Biden. That they allow such blatant bias on television, and still claim they are objective, is just hysterical.

[SarahFan]

As an outsider, I think this again shows up the deep flaws in the format of these debates in the US. They have become such a major element of each election without having much (or any) substance to them at all, appearing instead to be a forum for rehearsed grandstanding. How much does anybody actually learn about the candidates participating?

.


excellently put!

the entire thing was just frustrating to watch...

in the end I learned nothing

[BDunnell]

I don't know what the level of scrutiny is in the USA? Certainly in the UK we have the politicians doing the rounds of the likes of the Politics Show, Newsnight et al, where the interviews are nearly always of a confrontational nature (some more so that others). And we get to see most of the potential cabinet put through the ringer, I just wonder if this is the same in the USA?

In my experience, the questioning by most US news presenters is like interviewers used to do it in the UK 50-odd years ago.

[BDunnell]

The idea that "the gal" should be given a chance based purely on her gender makes a mockery of the whole equal-opportunities ideal.

She's being considered for one of the most important and powerful jobs on the planet, and if she proves incapable then no factor - including her gender - should prevent her from being told to sling her hook.

:up:

Absolutely right. We have to work on the basis of a true meritocracy, otherwise what are we being other than deeply patronising to women?

[schmenke]

I thought the moderator did a very poor job of controlling the debate :s . Many of the questions asked went unanswered; Palin, particularly, deliberately and completely changed the topic several times. At times I wondered why a moderator was even bothered with :mark:

[L5->R5/CR]

I thought the moderator did a very poor job of controlling the debate :s . Many of the questions asked went unanswered; Palin, particularly, deliberately and completely changed the topic several times. At times I wondered why a moderator was even bothered with :mark:


The moderators are not given any power other than to ask questions without any vetting by the candidates...

A meaningful debate structure would terrify our sad politicians...

[BDunnell]

A meaningful debate structure would terrify our sad politicians...

I have heard it said that the style of debate in America's political institutions is partly to blame for the tame way politicians are treated by journalists, etc, in the US. I'm not saying that our House of Commons is a model of excellence in this respect — far from it — but its more 'knockabout' style, which has been traditional for many years, means British politicians have to think on their feet a lot more. This means they can take harsher treatment from interviewers.

However, this harsh treatment is a relatively new thing here, really beginning in the 1960s as a by-product, many would argue, of the satire boom and the end of reverence towards politicians that stemmed from our national humiliation over Suez.

[Roamy]

I feel that Palin's performance was as expected.

Many expected her to go down in flames, which, was simply foolish.

She did a good job of standing her ground on issues that she should have some footing on and deflecting the question, or flat out not addressing the topic, on issues on which she was sure to flounder.

The reality is that Palin was never going to be able to be strong on all of the issues of the debate. The moderator and Biden let her off the hook on addressing the question/topic early which allowed her to cover up her short comings.

What I love is her continual touting of her credentials as an energy and oil expert when many industry political consultation ad research firms, as well as many political specialists on the industry regard her "expertise" about as low as they could without being inflamatory...


On and VP debates hardly ever matter but we have never had an election in which there was such a real possibility that the VP would be forced to take over the country.

maybe we should discuss the experience of Obama beginning with the number of days on the job. Then moving on to things that he has run.

[Rollo]

Hideously OT:
Did Sarah Palin realise the connotations in calling her daughter Bristol? Could it have been Bristol's... er... ... and hence the reason why she got knocked up in the first place?

Is it possible to buy either a Bristol City or Bristol Rovers strip with the name "Palin" on the back?

You know what, to avoid this sort of thing in future, maybe they should pick on another equally obscure British town instead like Bownes-on-Solway or something.

[markabilly]

McCain is 72 years old and is not exactly a picture of good health. While I wish no ill on ANY of the candidates, with a McCain win, there is a distinct possibility that Palin might wind up as President of the U.S.

And if that is the type of person that John McCain would put one heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States of America, then I would burn my ballot before I would vote for him.

What are you worried about???

Morality stats show that at his age, if elected, for each year that he serves, there is only a 1 in 6 to 1 in 7 chance that he will die during that year.

And due to the nature of age and stats, there is not a good stat I could find on what are the chances that he will make it through all four years, but seems to be pretty high, like about 60% or so.....



The moderators are not given any power other than to ask questions without any vetting by the candidates...

A meaningful debate structure would terrify our sad politicians...


Palin is not different than Bill Clinton when as the former gov of Arkansaw (pronounced "Are kin saw" to which one should reply, "Seen a cousin"), he went right to the top job (and Arkansaw folks luv Mississippi, cause it kept Ark out of last place in everything).

I think she comes across extremely well on TV, far better than any of recent candidates, and that includes George W, Hillary, John "Bronze Star" Kerry, and the current bunch of Bama, Biden (or it it Bidet) and esp. McCain.

She is the only one who comes close to Bill Clinton, who could say things like, "I may have smoked grass, but I never inhaled", "I never had sex with that woman........what? a BJ is part of how you define sex? well that is not MY definition"............and so on, like water off a duck's back.

What is the ultimate test question, that 99% of the population will fail? Easy. Was Nixon the last president to be impeached?

No, Nixon was never impeached, he was just threatened, so he resigned, whereas Bill was impeached in the House, and had 50 Senators vote to convict him in the Senate, only 17 votes shy of being tossed out on to the street, yet he never showed any real concern about it, like water off a duck's back.......It strikes me that Palin is made of the same stuff.....

Course it does not mean she should be where she is.

Frankly, as I have said for the past year, the current candidates are totally clueless on what matters. Either one (or party) is NOT going to do any good.

The current Wall Street mess does demonstrate one difference between the two parties. The Republicans are more upfront about taking care of "Big Business" and sweet tax breaks for the rich whereas the Democrats rant and rave about those filthy fat cats and the need for taxes on them, but then sneak around and fill the pork barrells for the fat cats and themselves even worse than the Republicans.

Sort of like one politican who says there is nothing wrong with having a whorehouse in the town and goes to visit by walking in the front door, while the other delivers long speeches about banning it, banning sex, banning even thinking about sex......and then sneaks in the backdoor in the middle of the night for all the free favors he can get.

Last five test questions which 99% of you will fail (And actually I think the people on this forum are far more informed and intelligent than the general public, so.......

1. Who was the sponsor of the last major bill to regulate big banks in the past 12 years (covers 4 years of Bill clinton's presidency and 8 years of George W) with regulations that may well have prevented the current problem--if not too late---?

2. Why and who caused it to fail?

3. When was the legislation that gave these banks the freedom to do what they did and contributed most to the current mess?

4. While a US senator, who recieved the most money in campaign contributions from Wall Street fat cat lobbyists...McCain or Bama?

5. Paulson only recently became the treasurer, before that what was he doing and who is the major beneficary of the big bailout?

Answers:

1. McCain (2004-2005)

2. Democrats killed it dead, and probably that should have been expected since not too many repubs would be supporting it, and the Demes while running off at the mouth, were to busy sneaking in the back door for their handouts.....

3.
In the U.S., the Glass-Steagall Act, initially created in the wake of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, prohibited banks from both accepting deposits and underwriting securities which led to segregation of investment banks from commercial banks. Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed for many large financial institutions by theGramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

Passed by Dems and signed by Bill....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_bank

those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its failures.......

4. Wrong again....Bama received 6 to 8 times more money while a senator than did Mcain. Mcain recieved some 22k and bama recieved over 122k....

5. Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Thanks to this, his net worth has been estimated at over US $700 million. Recently Goldman Sachs has been increasingly involved in both advising and brokering deals to privatize major highways by selling them off to foreign investors as in the superior position to profit from the fallout.

"Unlike the previous bailouts and managed liquidations of Goldman competitors Bear Stearns, AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in which shareholder value was largely wiped out, Goldman's stock could rise under the Paulson plan, together with many financial stocks, benefiting his former partners because it would remove some distressed assets from their balance sheet."
So some of his buds get richer and some do not...

On August 10, 2008, Secretary Paulson told NBC’s Meet the Press that he had no plans to inject any capital into fannie or freddie. On September 7, 2008, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into conservatorship
Sources: Wikipedia

Finally,
Section 8 of Paulson’s plan states: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

As the old song went, "take a look around you boy, it is bound to scare you...."

[Dave B]

Hideously OT:
Did Sarah Palin realise the connotations in calling her daughter Bristol?
Whereas Track, on the other hand, is a perfectly sensible name for any child.

[Jag_Warrior]

What are you worried about???

Morality stats show that at his age, if elected, for each year that he serves, there is only a 1 in 6 to 1 in 7 chance that he will die during that year.

And due to the nature of age and stats, there is not a good stat I could find on what are the chances that he will make it through all four years, but seems to be pretty high, like about 60% or so.....

So the chances of McCain surviving a 4 year term and not leaving Moose Girl in charge are the same as if I loaded my .44 Colt with one bullet, spun the cylinder, pointed it at my head and pulled the trigger? Somehow that doesn't make me feel much better. :dozey:

Again, at one time I thought quite highly of John McCain. What happened to the John McCain of the mid to late 90's, I don't know. I suspect he has had to tailor his message to better appeal to the ex-Trotskyite neocons who now run the GOP. The neocons and Evangelicals seem to really love Palin. I don't think they would have been as accepting of Elizabeth Dole, though Elizabeth has forgotten more than Sarah Palin will ever know. Course these are the same people who loved Dan Quayle like a new puppy and (still) think that George W. Bush is doing a swell ol' job.

Aside from my opinion that Palin is a discount muppet, McCain seems to have lost himself in order to appeal to the (social) conservatives. And it's not that I expect McCain to die. I would hate that for the nation and his family. The pain of death has touched me several times over the past year and I don't wish that on anyone. But should he (and I believe your stats only take his age into account, not his battles with cancer), what is this option that he would leave us with??? My ex taught her parrot to speak. And though I couldn't stand that nasty feathered creature, he was quite engaging. Like Palin during the debate, he couldn't answer questions either. But he was also good at reciting what he'd been taught to say. As we were breaking up, I taught the bird some real interesting words. I'm just afraid Dick Cheney might do the same with Palin. :D

[markabilly]

So the chances of McCain surviving a 4 year term and not leaving Moose Girl in charge are the same as if I loaded my .44 Colt with one bullet, spun the cylinder, pointed it at my head and pulled the trigger? Somehow that doesn't make me feel much better. :dozey:

. :D


No you should do it only once every year, for each year, for the next four years........for a total of four times spread over four years.....

Yes those are general stats for population in general. As to how his particular cancer would affect that....well.....

happy now???? don't you feel much better.... :D

Frankly in terms of the particular serious problems facing this nation, the outcome of the coming election will be completely meaningless....indeed the most meaningless I can think of....

[Jag_Warrior]

No you should do it only once every year, for each year, for the next four years........for a total of four times spread over four years.....

Yes those are general stats for population in general. As to how his particular cancer would affect that....well.....

happy now???? don't you feel much better.... :D


I'll let Tony George borrow my Colt and we'll let him try that. Every New Year's Day, I'll slide a hollow point in the cylinder, give it a spin and step away before Tony gives it a go. I kinda like that idea. :D



Frankly in terms of the particular serious problems facing this nation, the outcome of the coming election will be completely meaningless....indeed the most meaningless I can think of....

I think you're underestimating the effect that an Administration has on fiscal and foreign policy. If looking at nothing more than veto power, what does or doesn't happen often ends up at the end of the President's pen. Whatever path this nation is set on over the next four years may determine our future for decades to come. I would say this Presidential election, along with every member of the House being up for re-election, is the most important election that I can recall.

[DonnieDarco]

When Palin became mayor of Alaska she withdrew state funding for rape kits. This means that if a woman gets raped and is brave enough to go to the police to report it, she has to pay for her own rape kit!

There's also a small matter of £200,000 dollars in funding that Palin has failed to return, indeed the money has simply disappeared. At least we know she's not spending it on clothes.

The whole debate was complete nonsense, given that Biden knew if he went after her as it would have been pathetically easy to do, he would merely have put half America on her side as he was mean to a woman.

But she doesn't have enough brains to fill an eggcup, and really, you can't make this stuff up. Americans should be embarrassed that this is happening, and vote accordingly!

[markabilly]

I think you're underestimating the effect that an Administration has on fiscal and foreign policy. If looking at nothing more than veto power, what does or doesn't happen often ends up at the end of the President's pen. Whatever path this nation is set on over the next four years may determine our future for decades to come. I would say this Presidential election, along with every member of the House being up for re-election, is the most important election that I can recall.


No actually I am not underestimating the effect....and that is the problem.

When one is talking economics and fiscal policy and jobs, the democrats tend to do sometimes better, slightly, but look carefully at the my earlier thread.

Oh but it is an extremely important election and we have two candidates equally clueless, both being advised by the same set of greedy losers from wall street, both unable to grasp the problems and neither who has any plan fro the long term.

The only big difference in choices this year, is that the demes are bigger hypocrites. Repubes serve the fat cats openly and the demes do it through the back door, scurrying around like cockroaches in the dark.

It was the demes more than anyone else, who set the stage for the problems beginning with Billy and Hilly clinton. Then W comes along, equally clueless...but blow up the budget to blow up Iraq.........then be buddy-buddy with snake man putin, now a billionaire, thanks to his job (bet there are slobs inluding george W very jealous about how come not me....but then paulson has that special clause that gives him 700 billion and no review whatsoever with what he does with it...poor ole james bond is thinking I would rather have a license to spend 7 double o billion then be a double o 7 with a license to kill.....and putin is thinking, gee wonder how I could put that kind of dough to work for me and my buds......

So here we are with perhaps the most critical ecomic crisis since the great depresion, and one of the most important elections ever, and the only real choice in terms of differences is between "the first half-black president named Hussien" or the "first female VP likely to be prez before the end of the term".

Great grounds for deciding the outcome of an election and the outcome of a nation.....I really can not decide between such a choice as none of them is qualified for the job

[Garry Walker]

The idea that "the gal" should be given a chance based purely on her gender makes a mockery of the whole equal-opportunities ideal.



This all has not stopped minorities in USA (blacks) from benefitting hugely from "positive" discrimination. Not equal opportunities, but blatant discrimination against whites, especially men.

As for the debate - neither really impressed, but palin was embarrassing at times.

[Roamy]

[quote="Jag_Warrior"]So the chances of McCain surviving a 4 year term and not leaving Moose Girl in charge are the same as if I loaded my .44 Colt with one bullet, spun the cylinder, pointed it at my head and pulled the trigger? Somehow that doesn't make me feel much better. :dozey:

Ah have a set of balls and put two rounds in there for us :p :

[Roamy]

I thought the moderator did a very poor job of controlling the debate :s . Many of the questions asked went unanswered; Palin, particularly, deliberately and completely changed the topic several times. At times I wondered why a moderator was even bothered with :mark:


All of this is horsesh!t - look it took the congress to get the bailout bill passed all Bush said is you better pass it. Plus he bailout will be a bust anyway. you only need to go look at fanny and freddie to see the democrats in action. But even this was not handled by the republicans. So bottom line you will change nothing in this country as long as we have a two party system and people leave all these idiots in office.

[Roamy]

Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago?
Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago; 221 killed in Iraq.

Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin,
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Gov. Rod Blogojevich,
House leader Mike Madigan,
Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
.....our leadership in Illinois .....all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.
Of course, they're all blaming each other.
Can't blame Republicans; they're aren't any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want).
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois. And he's gonna 'fix' Washington politics for us!

[F1boat]

In Bulgaria the man who won the Presidency deliberatly failed to visit the debates and won two times :)

[Roamy]

sounds great to me

[DonnieDarco]

Just watched SNL's version of the debate and I have to say - Tina Fey is awesome :D

[BDunnell]

When Palin became mayor of Alaska she withdrew state funding for rape kits. This means that if a woman gets raped and is brave enough to go to the police to report it, she has to pay for her own rape kit!

Am I alone in wondering whether her unpleasantly desperate conservatism when it comes to sexual issues stems, in some way, from a wish to repent from former behaviour? After all, she mysteriously went through five colleges in five years, so something was clearly up with her at that time of her life. 'Me thinks the lady doth protest too much', and all of that...

[BDunnell]

maybe we should discuss the experience of Obama beginning with the number of days on the job. Then moving on to things that he has run.

Yes, but unlike Palin, he's not an embarrassing moron.

[Jag_Warrior]

So the chances of McCain surviving a 4 year term and not leaving Moose Girl in charge are the same as if I loaded my .44 Colt with one bullet, spun the cylinder, pointed it at my head and pulled the trigger? Somehow that doesn't make me feel much better. :dozey:

Ah have a set of balls and put two rounds in there for us :p :

Yikes! Let Ferrari start taking weekly azz whippings and the skin gets thin around here, eh?

OK. Just for you, I'll load two rounds. You come over and give me a big ol' smooch on the jaw while I squeeze the trigger though. :)

[Jag_Warrior]

Yes, but unlike Palin, he's not an embarrassing moron.

Hold on a second. What about Palin is causing you to categorize her as an "embarrassing moron"?

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/upload/img_pict/ana851e10.jpg


God help us all...

[TOgoFASTER]

Needs more of that there Joe Sixpack appeal. :disturb:

:laugh:

[Roamy]

Yikes! Let Ferrari start taking weekly azz whippings and the skin gets thin around here, eh?

OK. Just for you, I'll load two rounds. You come over and give me a big ol' smooch on the jaw while I squeeze the trigger though. :)

Sorry but I will need to have Hilary stand in for me :D

[fly1]

But not as a vice president and God forbid as a president.

[Roamy]

But not as a vice president and God forbid as a president.
I fail to see the point if you are voting for Obama who has 175 days experience and has led or managed nothing in his life. So are you voting for mccain and hope he lives or are you voting for Obama and hope he gets killed?

Actually Sarah has the "Only Track record" of what we seem to want and that is taking it to the big greedy corporations and providing a sound national energy policy. As far as foreign policy goes she could just delegate that down as no one in the world wants us around unless they are being attacked. We are so inbread with the "eastern politician" that we will never get out of this self serving greed rut without a true change of leadership. McCain will shake up the system but quite frankly I would rather see a "Arnold - Sarah" ticket. We need a leader not another Orator.

You need only to go here to understand why a two party system is a failure and incest rules our current legislation!

http://www.authorstream.com/presentation/bash93-92716-shot-fannymae-shotinthefanniemae-entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/

[BDunnell]

We are so inbread with the "eastern politician" that we will never get out of this self serving greed rut without a true change of leadership.

So someone who employs a friend with no experience relevant to that job represents an answer to this problem, do they?


McCain will shake up the system but quite frankly I would rather see a "Arnold - Sarah" ticket.

I'm sorry, but that would make the USA seem like an utter laughing stock.

[TOgoFASTER]

I'm sorry, but that would make the USA seem like an utter laughing stock.

Add in the Bush years with McCain shaking things up, plus the Arnold/Palin team removes the "seem like" part of your post.

[Jag_Warrior]

Sorry but I will need to have Hilary stand in for me :D

Hillary? Eh, maybe... with enough Jack Daniels in me, I might have her liking boys again by midnight. :eek:

But if you'd said Janet Reno, I was going to the gunsafe to get out the dueling pistols. :s mokin:

[Hawkmoon]

How'd you like to be John McCain? Most people seem to think that he's going to die sometime in the next 4 years. Hope he's got his funeral arrangements sorted.

[Jag_Warrior]

How'd you like to be John McCain? Most people seem to think that he's going to die sometime in the next 4 years. Hope he's got his funeral arrangements sorted.

Yeah, I never thought about it that way. I guess that would really suck: people being hesitant to vote for you, in part, because they're afraid you might croak and leave a dimwit with an eye twitch in charge.

BTW, why does she wink so much??? What is wrong with this person? Is she mentally unbalanced or something? Does she think it, or she, is cute? I read on a blog this morning where she was being referred to as Gomer Palin. And to be honest, that seems about right. McCain is a complete fool for not selecting someone like Elizabeth Dole, if he wanted to choose a female as a running mate. In Elizabeth's case, she's at least as intelligent as McCain, probably more so. More often than not, I'd say Elizabeth is probably the smartest person in any room. In Palin's case, it would have to be a damn small room for her to be the smartest person in any room. She could be the only person in the room... and I'm still not sure she could manage to be the smartest person in the room.

[leopard]

pretty fair, in case Obama wins the election, would he be so kind to give her occupation in the ministries.

[Roamy]

So someone who employs a friend with no experience relevant to that job represents an answer to this problem, do they?



I'm sorry, but that would make the USA seem like an utter laughing stock.

no relevant experience would be "Obama" if you haven't checked.

Arnold seems to be doing much better than most in our congress. IMO leaders are leaders and at this time we have very few!!

[BDunnell]

no relevant experience would be "Obama" if you haven't checked.

What do you feel constitutes relevant experience, then? And please don't say 'serving in the military' because this, as the Bush years prove, is utterly irrelevant. Furthermore, I don't feel that length of service in any job, political or otherwise, necessarily means anything. Sometimes, a fresh approach is best.

[TOgoFASTER]

I find the very idea of a sentient thought or two a refreshing change over the last eight years of US history.
Most of the "experiences" those "leaders" have, has been proven utterly worthless.
They fed their own to excess and told the rest to eat cake.

A fresh approach is indeed needed.







I support Michael Palin. At least his experiences at being funny were by meaning to be funny in the first place.

[TOgoFASTER]

John Cleese is a very funny man and a poet as well. :)

[Roamy]

What do you feel constitutes relevant experience, then? And please don't say 'serving in the military' because this, as the Bush years prove, is utterly irrelevant. Furthermore, I don't feel that length of service in any job, political or otherwise, necessarily means anything. Sometimes, a fresh approach is best.


The presidency of our country requires a track record of experience.
Obama has very little and what is know coming out about his background is quite disturbing and I think is only the beginning of information coming about him. He simply does not have the experience to be President.

[tmx]

Hi, I just made this pundit ad thing about sarah palin (http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b233/eksasol/sarahpalingrades.jpg), sorry had way too much free time.

[Eki]

The presidency of our country requires a track record of experience.
It didn't seem that way in 2000, when you elected George W Bush. He hadn't set his foot outside the US before his election, and overall appeared to be a guy who couldn't find his ass with both hands.

[markabilly]

Yes, but unlike Palin, he's not an embarrassing moron.


Wanna bet? Okay maybe not embarrassing, just another big greedy liar moron.

There is only the fact that he is half black and male, and she is not, and he does give lip service to the democrats "we do not like fat cats on wall street" and so forth (but I will take your money as he received the second highest $$$$ of anyone from fat cats on wall street as a senator--remiding me of a quote I heard about, I am not surprized that you can buy a senator or congressman, but i am surpized at how cheap they are to buy...and never voted yes to regulate or spoke to do it.....) otherwise there is nothing of substance to seperate them

So please spare the swooning over obama......

[TOgoFASTER]

There is only the fact that he is half black and male, and she is not

That is an embarrassing statement for the early years of 21st century.
Somehow I'm not surprized...

[Jag_Warrior]

no relevant experience would be "Obama" if you haven't checked.

Arnold seems to be doing much better than most in our congress. IMO leaders are leaders and at this time we have very few!!

I would agree with the underlined statement. While I think leadership skills can be learned and enhanced, I also believe that some people are just born with certain leadership characteristics. I think one reason that we don't get true leaders and the brightest minds in politics in the U.S. is because of the destructive nature of politics here. If you have it in you to be a star in business, why put yourself and your family through that? So we tend to get power hungry people, who wouldn't or couldn't make it in a free enterprise organization. Every now and again we get a notable exception or two. But for the most part, it seems that our choices are restricted to the best of the worst... or in the case of Sarah Palin, the worst of the worst.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because I didn't do my homework and didn't fully understand his deep ties to the neocon movement. I naively took him at his word that he did not believe in nation building. I took him at his word that he would encourage free, fair trade. I would not have voted for Al Gore, had I understood that Duhbya was a fiscally irresponsible neocon at heart. But I would have probably voted for a third party, as I may do this year. But really, until Duhbya took office and began emptying the Treasury, while indebting us to friends and foes alike, maybe there wasn't enough data to tell us where we were headed under the neocon flag.

All I see for this election is one guy who believes in a great many things that I do not believe in, but who is obviously very intelligent and does seem to have a fair number of leadership traits, experience aside. I have to give him credit for choosing a running mate who aids him in the one area where he was without any experience: foreign policy. I don't agree with Biden much of the time, but I could not say that he doesn't have experience and knowledge in that area. McCain has admitted that his understanding and knowledge of economics is lacking. So did he choose Jack Kemp? No. Perhaps he could have looked to a successful leader in business. Meg Whitman, for example, has forgotten more about business than John McCain will ever know. Did he choose her? No. Let's say he just wanted a female running mate. Why not choose one with a proven understand of politics and a respectable knowledge of business and economics? Maybe Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. So why choose someone who he'd only met once or twice, who he'd never really gotten to know, who (as we've now seen) is about as clueless as any national politician as I have seen in my lifetime? Why choose this person, who adds nothing of substance to the ticket? She brings a type of cutesy, redneck sex appeal and beliefs often held by uneducated, ignorant people, but nothing more that I can tell. Why choose this person, only to appeal to that segment of wingnuts on the far social right... the neocons? The same borrow & spend types who, along with their tax & spend cohorts on the far left, got us into the mess that we're currently in? Why not choose a fiscal conservative, with libertarian social views, and LOUDLY push forward ideas that would matter to most Americans? Tax simplification. Tax fairness. Job creation. Education. Healthcare reform. Legal reform. Energy independence. Infrastructure maintenance. It was Ronald Reagan who said, "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." I believe the GOP will lose this election, in part, because that party has lost both its heart and its soul.

McCain's recent socialist brain fart, that the government should purchase troubled mortgages from banks at face value, allow the underlying real property to be revalued and then reset the mortgages based on these new lower values, tells me that he is neither a libertarian nor a fiscal conservative. All his plan does is reward bad luck or bad behavior on the part of lenders and borrowers alike and lock in a loss for American taxpayers. He may be some sort of confused national socialist at heart. Or, more likely, he may just be a desperate and tired old man, who is carelessly throwing ideas at the wall, hoping that he can get something to stick, as he watches a smooth talking liberal with a charismatic personality, effectivley connect with more people than he is.

I opened this thread to talk about the Biden/Palin debate. I've rewatched the debate twice now, once with a similarly (fiscally) conservative friend of mine. The only people who really seem to find Palin to be a "breath of fresh air" are those with less education, little true understanding of economics and of course, those with a deep hatred of Obama (for whatever their various reasons may be). There are those, like my friend who may vote for McCain/Palin. But he says that if he does, he will pray for McCain's good health for the next four years. His wife doesn't believe that prayer will be enough, so she is voting for Obama/Biden. I also believe in prayer, but I think I'd rather vote for Barr and pray that Obama doesn't do as bad a job of sinking this nation, as George W. Bush has over the past 8 years. I've told her she needs to use sex as a weapon and either get him to vote for Obama or I'll threaten to not take him to VA International Raceway with me unless he votes for Barr, Nader... anyone but McCain/Palin. Without sex and racing, I think he'll fold like a lawnchair under the weight of a fat person. :D

[markabilly]

I would agree with the underlined statement. While I think leadership skills can be learned and enhanced, I also believe that some people are just born with certain leadership characteristics. I think one reason that we don't get true leaders and the brightest minds in politics in the U.S. is because of the destructive nature of politics here. If you have it in you to be a star in business, why put yourself and your family through that? So we tend to get power hungry people, who wouldn't or couldn't make it in a free enterprise organization. Every now and again we get a notable exception or two. But for the most part, it seems that our choices are restricted to the best of the worst... or in the case of Sarah Palin, the worst of the worst.

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because I didn't do my homework and didn't fully understand his deep ties to the neocon movement. I naively took him at his word that he did not believe in nation building. I took him at his word that he would encourage free, fair trade. I would not have voted for Al Gore, had I understood that Duhbya was a fiscally irresponsible neocon at heart. But I would have probably voted for a third party, as I may do this year. But really, until Duhbya took office and began emptying the Treasury, while indebting us to friends and foes alike, maybe there wasn't enough data to tell us where we were headed under the neocon flag.

All I see for this election is one guy who believes in a great many things that I do not believe in, but who is obviously very intelligent and does seem to have a fair number of leadership traits, experience aside. I have to give him credit for choosing a running mate who aids him in the one area where he was without any experience: foreign policy. I don't agree with Biden much of the time, but I could not say that he doesn't have experience and knowledge in that area. McCain has admitted that his understanding and knowledge of economics is lacking. So did he choose Jack Kemp? No. Perhaps he could have looked to a successful leader in business. Meg Whitman, for example, has forgotten more about business than John McCain will ever know. Did he choose her? No. Let's say he just wanted a female running mate. Why not choose one with a proven understand of politics and a respectable knowledge of business and economics? Maybe Elizabeth Dole or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. So why choose someone who he'd only met once or twice, who he'd never really gotten to know, who (as we've now seen) is about as clueless as any national politician as I have seen in my lifetime? Why choose this person, who adds nothing of substance to the ticket? She brings a type of cutesy, redneck sex appeal and beliefs often held by uneducated, ignorant people, but nothing more that I can tell. Why choose this person, only to appeal to that segment of wingnuts on the far social right... the neocons? The same borrow & spend types who, along with their tax & spend cohorts on the far left, got us into the mess that we're currently in? Why not choose a fiscal conservative, with libertarian social views, and LOUDLY push forward ideas that would matter to most Americans? Tax simplification. Tax fairness. Job creation. Education. Healthcare reform. Legal reform. Energy independence. Infrastructure maintenance. It was Ronald Reagan who said, "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." I believe the GOP will lose this election, in part, because that party has lost both its heart and its soul.

McCain's recent socialist brain fart, that the government should purchase troubled mortgages from banks at face value, allow the underlying real property to be revalued and then reset the mortgages based on these new lower values, tells me that he is neither a libertarian nor a fiscal conservative. All his plan does is reward bad luck or bad behavior on the part of lenders and borrowers alike and lock in a loss for American taxpayers. He may be some sort of confused national socialist at heart. Or, more likely, he may just be a desperate and tired old man, who is carelessly throwing ideas at the wall, hoping that he can get something to stick, as he watches a smooth talking liberal with a charismatic personality, effectivley connect with more people than he is.

I opened this thread to talk about the Biden/Palin debate. I've rewatched the debate twice now, once with a similarly (fiscally) conservative friend of mine. The only people who really seem to find Palin to be a "breath of fresh air" are those with less education, little true understanding of economics and of course, those with a deep hatred of Obama (for whatever their various reasons may be). There are those, like my friend who may vote for McCain/Palin. But he says that if he does, he will pray for McCain's good health for the next four years. His wife doesn't believe that prayer will be enough, so she is voting for Obama/Biden. I also believe in prayer, but I think I'd rather vote for Barr and pray that Obama doesn't do as bad a job of sinking this nation, as George W. Bush has over the past 8 years. I've told her she needs to use sex as a weapon and either get him to vote for Obama or I'll threaten to not take him to VA International Raceway with me unless he votes for Barr, Nader... anyone but McCain/Palin. Without sex and racing, I think he'll fold like a lawnchair under the weight of a fat person. :D


I agree as to what you say about McCain/Palin. Now apply the same level of logical scrutiny to Bama/Bidet.

Bama has even less experience (asin ZERO) at running a government than plain Palin (face it, there is a strong probability that if McCain is elected, then Palin will serve it out as President).

Obama has been hanging out with the people who bought him while living in the most corrupt political area of the USA, (his Mafia bud who got him his house, his reverend Wright who is just as racist as they come, just for black superiority rather than redneck, second highest receiver of wall street money and so forth)

Face it, McCain has been a bud of those corrupt corporations but they regard him as something of being untrustworthy because he supported a bill that would have put some additional, very mild and ineffective controls on Wall Street (something that NOT ONCE in his entire carreer that Obama has ever thought about, spoke out in favor or VOTED TO DO while he was a senator in his long and lenghty career in the Senate that began in 2004). They do not trust him as much as they do Obama--after all, he might get to thinking he is back in the Hanoi Hilton, and start resisting what his captors tell him to do, whereas they trust Obama who so willingly sucked down their money, to be a good little boy and do as told ("yes sir master boss, i do what i told", as to re-quote Obama, the ACORNS do not fall far from the tree).

If Obama and Palin took the same ecomic and history IQ test, the score of both would be little different, and they would both FLUNK basic economic understanding as to have a small one percent clue as to what to do about the economic crisis; however, they would pass the part on how to take good care of wall street fat cats (ie give them whatever they want to keep them rich while the rest of the world melts down, aka also known as the Bush-Paulson bail out plan that more Demes voted for than even the Repubes could bring themselves to do!!!!)

So bottom line, the world is in big trouble no matter which pair of morons is voted in as the decision really comes to down to the biggest difference and the only grounds as to choices based on real differences between the two groups, as I said before, one is one-half black man, and the other has a white woman who might end up president.

Is that a reason to base your decision upon?

Obviously not, but when that is all there is.......

the election result is meaningless, so ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for all of us........

[Jag_Warrior]

I agree as to what you say about McCain/Palin. Now apply the same level of logical scrutiny to Bama/Bidet.

I have. That's why I'm not voting for "Bama/Bidet" :)

But if forced to vote for one or the other of the majors, I would vote for Obama... Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or Daffy Duck before I would ever vote for another candidate with connections to the neocon movement. If there was one political movement that I would assist in running out of this great nation at the tip of a sharp bayonet, it is the Neo-Conservative movement. By pretending to be fiscal conservatives, these wingnut traitors have bankrupted us morally and financially. The one vote that I will probably regret until the day I die is my vote for George W. Bush in 2000.



the election result is meaningless, so ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for all of us........

I don't agree with that. Using that logic, every election result has been "meaningless", because every candidate in my lifetime has had ties (personally, through business or through cabinet nominees) to Wall Street or the "greedy fat cats". There is a certain class in this country, who don't always share the same political views, but who must touch you on the shoulder with the sword, if you are going to be allowed a chance to sit in the big chair. But that commonality has not meant that the paths taken have always been the same.

Are we going to be in trouble no matter who wins? Yes, I believe so. I'm not sure that this mess can be solved in 4-8 years. And there were no true mavericks in this contest. There were no Ross Perot's on the horizon. And since he didn't grow up in a log cabin or have nail marks in his palms, some may have taken issue with him too. I don't know. But no matter who has given money or support (large corporations tend to give money to both sides - we always did: cover your bets), there are fundamental differences between the two in the areas of foreign policy and domestic policy. Hosed either way? Quite possibly. But both the same? Hardly. Just look at McCain's proposal (more likely from the brain of Phil Gramm) to socialize mortgage losses, while allowing profits to remain in the private sector. McCain has slight understanding of economics. When he stated that the economy was fundamentally sound a few months ago, that didn't come from his own head. That was Phil "Americans Are Whiners" Gramm whispering in his ear. Obama would socialize both profits and losses to some degree. True capitalism puts profits AND losses in the private sector: if you're right you win and live... if you're wrong you lose and die. No bailouts, followed by weekend resort trips. Three entirely different philosophies. My issue is I don't see anyone who now has the stones to propose a capitalist solution. The capitalist solution would be long and painful, though (IMO) effective. With McCain, there'll likely be something that looks more like his pal Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act ("Hey Mr. Clean, you're dirty now too!"). With Obama, there'll likely be some sort of "Great Society" plan. But I expect to see very few policy similarities between someone from the tax & spend left and someone who (sadly) now has increasing ties to the borrow & spend neocon right. Arguing about the end result is one thing. But no doubt, the method is going to be different depending on who takes this.

And will the (super) rich get richer... or adapt? Since well before the time of Octavian, that has been the case. I see no reason for that to suddenly change in 2008.

[markabilly]

I have. That's why I'm not voting for "Bama/Bidet" :)


Are we going to be in trouble no matter who wins? Yes, I believe so.
.


You are stealing my bottom line..............

[Jag_Warrior]

Here's a site that I suggest any and all, who are interested in the U.S. political campaign, visit:

http://www.factcheck.org/

Maybe there are similar sites out there. But as far as I know, this one is the most reliable and nonpartisan when it comes to performing "fact checks".

[Jag_Warrior]

You are stealing my bottom line..............

:D We agree on that one.

Any enterprise or system that relies on man's willingness and ability to do the right thing is probably flawed from the start.

The only good answer is to get off the grid. But that's pretty darn hard for most of us to do.

[Roamy]

I have a Dream !!




http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/attach/jpg.gif

[markabilly]

I have a Dream !!




http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/attach/jpg.gif


Hahaha
Actually I think that is palin's dream.
For Obama, the heads just need to be reversed

[Dave B]

McCain could have one last roll of the dice and sack Palin. It would show that he's got the ability to make tough decisions, and with a half-decent VP he might just stand half a chance.

[Roamy]

brock
I don't think it is gonna get any better for McCain. Either the women go for palin or they don't, I think beyond Palin we are out of good republicans. Ooh time for the broom I guess.

[OWFan19]

I think Palin is a joke of a running mate. Her answers with interviews that should have been easy to answer, were a total strugle. McCain has proven he is unfit to be President with his weak narrow minded campaign, and picking a a person with no brain to serve as his possible replacement. That isnt Country First, its Campaign First. Its scary that he could allow someone like Palin to be that close to be the President, One thing I give to the Republicans, they can take someone whether its Bush, McCain, Palin, and make them look like they are awesome.

If you think the Republicans don't have anyone better than Palin, then your party is an absolute joke. You betcha.

Great photo of Obama shinning shoes, proving once again that half of our country is getting dumber by the day.

[TOgoFASTER]

If you think the Republicans don't have anyone better than Palin, then your party is an absolute joke. You betcha.

Great photo of Obama shinning shoes, proving once again that half of our country is getting dumber by the day.

The good Republicans jumped ship awhile back and left the disgraced name to the fringe players.

Not dumber by the day, just more easily self exposed. :)

[Roamy]

I have. That's why I'm not voting for "Bama/Bidet" :)

But if forced to vote for one or the other of the majors, I would vote for Obama... Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or Daffy Duck before I would ever vote for another candidate with connections to the neocon movement. If there was one political movement that I would assist in running out of this great nation at the tip of a sharp bayonet, it is the Neo-Conservative movement. By pretending to be fiscal conservatives, these wingnut traitors have bankrupted us morally and financially. The one vote that I will probably regret until the day I die is my vote for George W. Bush in 2000.




I don't agree with that. Using that logic, every election result has been "meaningless", because every candidate in my lifetime has had ties (personally, through business or through cabinet nominees) to Wall Street or the "greedy fat cats". There is a certain class in this country, who don't always share the same political views, but who must touch you on the shoulder with the sword, if you are going to be allowed a chance to sit in the big chair. But that commonality has not meant that the paths taken have always been the same.

Are we going to be in trouble no matter who wins? Yes, I believe so. I'm not sure that this mess can be solved in 4-8 years. And there were no true mavericks in this contest. There were no Ross Perot's on the horizon. And since he didn't grow up in a log cabin or have nail marks in his palms, some may have taken issue with him too. I don't know. But no matter who has given money or support (large corporations tend to give money to both sides - we always did: cover your bets), there are fundamental differences between the two in the areas of foreign policy and domestic policy. Hosed either way? Quite possibly. But both the same? Hardly. Just look at McCain's proposal (more likely from the brain of Phil Gramm) to socialize mortgage losses, while allowing profits to remain in the private sector. McCain has slight understanding of economics. When he stated that the economy was fundamentally sound a few months ago, that didn't come from his own head. That was Phil "Americans Are Whiners" Gramm whispering in his ear. Obama would socialize both profits and losses to some degree. True capitalism puts profits AND losses in the private sector: if you're right you win and live... if you're wrong you lose and die. No bailouts, followed by weekend resort trips. Three entirely different philosophies. My issue is I don't see anyone who now has the stones to propose a capitalist solution. The capitalist solution would be long and painful, though (IMO) effective. With McCain, there'll likely be something that looks more like his pal Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act ("Hey Mr. Clean, you're dirty now too!"). With Obama, there'll likely be some sort of "Great Society" plan. But I expect to see very few policy similarities between someone from the tax & spend left and someone who (sadly) now has increasing ties to the borrow & spend neocon right. Arguing about the end result is one thing. But no doubt, the method is going to be different depending on who takes this.

And will the (super) rich get richer... or adapt? Since well before the time of Octavian, that has been the case. I see no reason for that to suddenly change in 2008.

Jag look at it this way - we were brilliant voting for GWB. Now the entire congress is exposed. We have a chance to run all of these ______s out of office and bring in some new blood. Obama has had his hand so far up freddie and fannies ass that it will stink forever. The amazing thing to me this with all the TRUTH about obama's history how in the hell can this guy ever run for the highest office in our country. Yes the time for change should begin now with a total sweep of congress and a new impeachment bill that would remove unwanted politicians in 90 days.

[BDunnell]

While I think leadership skills can be learned and enhanced, I also believe that some people are just born with certain leadership characteristics. I think one reason that we don't get true leaders and the brightest minds in politics in the U.S. is because of the destructive nature of politics here. If you have it in you to be a star in business, why put yourself and your family through that? So we tend to get power hungry people, who wouldn't or couldn't make it in a free enterprise organization.

Let's not forget either that successful business-people cannot be transferred to the political world and be successful there. Many examples prove this. But I agree with your view on this point.

I think it could be expanded to say that, in the USA, you also get people who wouldn't last five minutes in politics in much of Europe, and tactics that have become utterly laughable to Europeans for their base brutality. To me, it is laughable that anyone should take those TV campaign ads seriously, yet many in the States clearly do. Why? I can only guess that they are less-than-well-informed and incapable of making political decisions without being told what to think by one side or the other. The level of debate is scarily low.



McCain's recent socialist brain fart, that the government should purchase troubled mortgages from banks at face value, allow the underlying real property to be revalued and then reset the mortgages based on these new lower values, tells me that he is neither a libertarian nor a fiscal conservative. All his plan does is reward bad luck or bad behavior on the part of lenders and borrowers alike and lock in a loss for American taxpayers. He may be some sort of confused national socialist at heart. Or, more likely, he may just be a desperate and tired old man, who is carelessly throwing ideas at the wall, hoping that he can get something to stick, as he watches a smooth talking liberal with a charismatic personality, effectivley connect with more people than he is.

Let's face it, many, many people are confused regarding their opinions on economic and other issues at the moment, leading the major political parties to have confused positions. We are seeing this in the UK at the moment. It is, in part, the sort of fiscal greed and lack of proper regulation that the Conservatives espoused for so long and Labour then did little to reverse that has got us into our current mess. Will this stop people voting Conservative? No! Should we believe that the Conservatives are now a left-wing party when it comes to economic policies and have disowned this element of their past? I don't think so.

[BDunnell]

Jag look at it this way - we were brilliant voting for GWB. Now the entire congress is exposed. We have a chance to run all of these ______s out of office and bring in some new blood. Obama has had his hand so far up freddie and fannies ass that it will stink forever. The amazing thing to me this with all the TRUTH about obama's history how in the hell can this guy ever run for the highest office in our country. Yes the time for change should begin now with a total sweep of congress and a new impeachment bill that would remove unwanted politicians in 90 days.

And that admittedly vague wish on your part would end with utter deadlock were it to be followed through. Quite what sort of people you wish to see in power, I dread to think.

Oh, and what is it about Obama's past you don't like? None of what we know seems all that serious when compared with the recent reality of Bush et al.

[Roamy]

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

[markabilly]

And that admittedly vague wish on your part would end with utter deadlock were it to be followed through. Quite what sort of people you wish to see in power, I dread to think.

Oh, and what is it about Obama's past you don't like? None of what we know seems all that serious when compared with the recent reality of Bush et al.


You do not get it.

It is not about who you like or who has a better image and all that.
If it were, then ideal ticket would be Obama/Palin as they both come across much more likable than McCain or Biden.

But it ain't suppose to be a popularity contest.

GWB is cut from the same cloth as is the current bunch of Obama and McCain, pure and simple, when it comes to the real problems of this country and this world.

So no matter who gets there, as the Who said,

"we won't get fooled again, no no.......Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

So whoever gets elected, when he starts to be sworn in, that should be the theme song.

[OWFan19]

You do not get it.

It is not about who you like or who has a better image and all that.
If it were, then ideal ticket would be Obama/Palin as they both come across much more likable than McCain or Biden.

But it ain't suppose to be a popularity contest.

GWB is cut from the same cloth as is the current bunch of Obama and McCain, pure and simple, when it comes to the real problems of this country and this world.

So no matter who gets there, as the Who said,

"we won't get fooled again, no no.......Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

So whoever gets elected, when he starts to be sworn in, that should be the theme song.

GWB is nothing like Obama nor is Obama anything like Bush.

[Roamy]

geez I think I will move to Panama or maybe the Turks. listening to either of these guys is pretty depressing.

[BTCC Fan#1]

Terrorists for McCain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/3238578/John-McCain-endorsed-by-al-Qaeda-supporters.html


In an endorsement that will not be welcomed by Mr McCain's flagging campaign, the group said that if al-Qaeda wants to exhaust the USmilitarily and economically, the "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate is the better choice.

[markabilly]

GWB is nothing like Obama nor is Obama anything like Bush.

YOU are so right!!!
How could I be so blind.

One is clearly white and the other is not.

My bad. :rolleyes:

Point is the whole world is going to hell, and while one might appear to be the radical left winger-lover of terrorists and follower of the racist Rev. Wright (the only difference between Wright and David Duke of the Klu Kluz Klan is literally skin color as to which race is superior--how can you forget the Billy Clinton interview where he bugged out his eyes, sighed and gave non responsive answers on the exact question related to that subject? well Duh)

And the other is a war vet, who nearly gave all, a right winger (whose famous quote was at the time Putin and Bush was buddy-buddy, and Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw whatever....while McCain said when he met him, he looked into his eyes and saw the letters "KGB") and he has got a woman for VP......

But bottom line remains both are whores of Wall Street, both use the economic advisors of the Alan Greenspan school of derivative economics, and Wall Street big executives (of the 50 million a year plus salaries) trust Obama far more than they do McCain (does that tell you something? Remember Watergate quote of "follow the money"....if you want to know who is really doing what to who....well, almost all of that Wall Street money is going and has been going to Obama since Obama was in the Senate)

So bottom line remains, there is not one difference between the two .......and they both lack the guts and backbone to do what is right and best for all of us in the long run...