Don’t get me wrong… I’m excited to think that the United States may finally end its racist monopoly on the country’s highest position of power. For all of our bullshit and crowing about freedom and our progressive democracy, the U.S. is one of the few democratic nations on the planet that has yet to see a woman and/or person who is not of the dominant race in this position of power. And, out of the choices that we Americans have faced for that office over the last 8, or even I’d go as far as to say 16 years, Barack Obama is the best candidate I’ve seen on the docket.

He speaks of hope. He has an understanding of issues of both race and class that, from what I can tell, is unparalleled to any past president. He seems grounded in a sense of fairness and rationality. He was spoon-fed the same bullshit yet still managed to vote with his conscience when going to war with Iraq. He’s able to form an argument and defend his position with useful, informed perspectives… something I have really missed ever since George took the reigns. Just the simple instance of hearing someone make a logical case for something they believe in has been so rare these past 8 years. But most importantly, he seems willing to listen to other people and is not afraid to have his ideas challenged… which I’d say is the opposite of our current president, who is so afraid of ideas outside the party line that he insulates himself from them almost entirely.

So yes, Barak is the best choice. Far better than anything Clinton had to offer… although what a shame that Hillary had to essentially paint herself as an aggressive, aloof hardliner in order to compete with the likes of the (republican) competition. I understand why she did it… electability and sexism. If she had been any less callous about her stance on the war or shown any signs of compassion, she would be labeled weak by the male population (and the many women who have been brainwashed by the system to consider such qualities a frailty).

I don’t think I need to go into why Barak is better than McCain considering that McCain is just as willing as the current administration to spin the truth. My favorite, tell-tale quote from McCain is the line about how, when he visited Iraq, he could walk “down the streets [of Baghdad] with no body armor on…” to which any number of news outlets then cut to photos of McCain wearing body armor, he and his delegation guarded by over 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks and 2 Apache gunships overhead ensuring the area was safe. Clicky for more McCain bullshit. McCain, to me, is just another branch of the extremely privileged, out-of-touch with reality elites that think they know what’s best for us little people.

But why do I think Barak is only the best out of the available choices and not a glowing candidate in and of himself?

With Hillary out of the race, Obama promptly declared on CNBC: “I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market.” Jason Furman is heading up his economic policy. Mr. Furman is a Wal-Mart supporter who thinks the people who are desperately trying to get Wally World to raise its wages are the problem, not the fact that Wal-Mart pays extremely substandard wages and cuts corners in nearly every way possible regarding benefits and compensation. Hell, Wal-Mart is one of the biggest drains on government hand-out programs since it actually suggests that its employees make use of federal programs so that the company doesn’t have to worry about things like health insurance (Medicaid and other taxpayer subsidized health services) or paying enough money on which a family could live (food stamps usage has shown to drastically increase once a Wal-Mart moves into town).

Let’s step away from economics and markets and take a look at foreign affairs. Obama has said that he supports an “undivided Jerusalem” as the capital of Israel. Not even Bush has been this myopic and callous regarding both the UN Resolution and international consensus that regards Jerusalem as an international city.

Obama has also decided to continue the embargo against Cuba… which, last time I checked, was in violation of so many human rights that every government of the United States since the beginning of the embargo (1962) could literally have crimes against humanity charges successfully brought against them for supporting it.

And then there’s the reappearance of the Monroe Doctrine in his speeches… or at least the spirit of it. For those unfamiliar with the term, the Monroe Doctrine has been used by politicians to sanction U.S. military and covert intervention in Latin America since its inception. When we don’t like the way a democratically elected government is running things, Monroe tells us we have the right to support death squads and Contra forces to beat the population to an utter pulp until that country’s government is forced to stop its socially-minded programs for the poor and working class and spend its money and time on defending its borders and civilian population (Nicaragua). Or, it means we have the right to support brutal dictatorships or carry out coups to install tyrants and thugs as long as they keep the way paved for U.S. investors (Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.) . Read my article on Nicaragua for one example. If more info is needed here, ask here, I'll gladly go into detail.

Obama has been quoted as saying we have “lost Latin America” (makes you wonder why we’re entitled to possess it in the first place…) and has talked about other ways we should be using our influence within the continent. Considering how many names of Latin American countries you can type into Google with the words “coup,” “dictatorship,” or “death squads” and then add “United States” and come up with a large number of hits detailing our sordid history within those lands, you would hope our best choice for president would be a little bit more aware of what he was saying….

And then there’s Iraq. Will Obama end the war he initially voted against? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. Even though the Barak Obama website claims we will “have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months,” Americans should understand that merely means we will have, at best, half our troops home. It says nothing of the military training forces, mercenary troops, no-bid contractors and commercial enterprises that have been bleeding the country and its resources dry since they set foot in Iraq.

And, even if we did somehow miraculously pull all of our troops out of Iraq, Obama thinks we need to “finish the fight in Afghanistan” (Obama’s website). Okay, so Obama was against the obviously misguided war against Iraq. But saying we need to finish the fight in Afghanistan means he thinks it's a conflict that is worth fighting… that we “should” be there. I do not share this view.

The purpose for attacking Afghanistan was to respond to the attacks of 9/11. Yet, even when the Taliban gave us an opportunity to bring the supposed mastermind of the attacks to justice (first they asked for evidence against Osama, then later offered to give him up w/o that requirement), we opted to dismiss their offer and proceeded to bomb the hell out of the civilian population. Since “we don’t do body counts” (Gen. Tommy Franks), we’ll never know the true number of civilian casualties… yet I can imagine that the continuing occupation of Afghanistan has only made it more difficult to distinguish civilian from “insurgent” as those fighting the U.S. and its allies have had to resort to guerrilla-style warfare in order to survive. (Hey, we did it vs the British, too.) Thankfully, some people have tried to keep a tally.

Afghanistan also paved the way for Iraq as it allowed us access to areas within the Middle East from which we could launch attacks, position troops and gather intel (for what little good that did us… heh). With these things in mind, I see the war raging in Afghanistan as little more than a punching bag to satisfy our need for vendetta for the crimes committed against us in September several years ago.

Now, for those of you who believe the War on Terror is a just cause, you may want to make sure you’ve thought the whole thing through thoroughly. My views on the subject are readily available.

So, yeah, Obama is the best choice out of a series of crappy ones. Let’s hope his desire for change keeps his mind open and flexible in the years to come if he indeed succeeds in becoming our nation’s next president.

(Originally from one of my blog posts.)

goliathvt wrote:

So, yeah, Obama is the best choice out of a series of crappy ones.

I 100% agree. It's better to have a pile of dried twigs vs a pile of wet twigs. Neither will help in the long run but the dry ones will at least make you THINK you'll survive 0 degrees f (~-20c).

Obama will send the country down in a near never-ending spiral of failure just like the other would. he's just not BSing about it like McCain is. He's admitting it & people love it. I'll have to take the opposite stance of his wife's current views if he goes through with what he promises if he's elected: I won't be proud to call myself an american.

I'm for Ralph Nader.

I'm not going to spend an hour writing an argument about why I hate Obama (and McCain), I just don't have the time to argue much anymore. =/

But I will say, that among many other reasons, this video is the reason why he scares me to death (As well as leftists in general):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

I'm pretty sure he's going to win. The mainstream media has the majority of the American idiots convinced that he will save this country (when it doesn't need to be saved).

And to boot, the Republican party has decided to nominate a liberal - someone that no real Republican wants to vote for. They've decided to drop all conservative values.

I might be the only conservative on these forums, that's fine and I don't care; I'm just sharing my thoughts.

If he makes 'bad' moves, he will end up in the morgue just like Kenedy. Nothing will change.

I think that's the first honest critique I've heard about Obama. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough but I've sort of tuned it all out. He's a Muslim, his middle name is Hussein, or his pastor said something nasty, as if that's the basis for choosing a good president.

I've heard him give the occasional speech and I tried to watch the debates for both parties. And from what I've seen and heard from him he's left a good impression.

But he's not my first choice. I was really hoping for Ron Paul but that train went off the tracks a long time ago. He was the only guy who was as fervently against the war as I am.

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for in the general election. All I can say with certainty is that it won't be McCain.

As for the touchy subject of a possible assassination with an Obama presidency, that's very likely irrespective of what he does in office. And I really hope things don't play out that way because I imagine we'll see something like the LA riots, only all across the country.

Well, making a long distance call from Europe:

Benjamin Franklin

As far as more available choices are concerned I do really think the downside of democracy is that a candidate has to cater to the taste of the masses. As long as the masses are well educated and can tell "campaigning" from "making a point" democracy works well.

If a country even considers to publicly discuss the abilities of a candidate by rallying people up on middle name choices or physical disabilities like how far you can stretch your arms out, then democracy turns into an idiocracy.

Press has changed from reporting news to a new style called alarmism. Rather than dissecting election campaigns and analysing the pros and cons of each candidate they focus on middle names, age concerns, how much they spend on a haircut and equally important long term presidential qualities.

How on earth can something good come out of such a process?

During this election run-up I've heard some very disturbing opinions by some voters. I love those ones that professed, "I'll vote for Hillary because she's a women", or "Barak because he's black". Mind you since the whole process is sad joke I guess skin colour or gender are as valid as any of the other criteria. Still to base your vote on that is just wrong.

Furthermore, many people believe that somehow this time it's going to different, that Barak will be different. Come on, how many more times does Joe-public need to get lied to, manipulated, over-taxed, and basically screwed by the government before people reject the current system? It seems the only criteria these days is wealth and profile. I'm like the next person who "hopes", and likes to think someone with honour, honesty and integrity will deliver us, the quivering masses, from ourselves and be our savour. Sadly I lost that notion when I turned 14 and started to understand the political system and politicians.

And I guess while others get excited at this sort of change, and sincerely think things will be different, it isn't going to be, and the whole rotten structure will keep on churning, benefiting those in power and keeping the average person disconnected from their government and under control. I can't believe how short the voting public's memory is. And if trends of voter turn-out continue they way they have been over the last few years, more and more people will be tuning out.

I'll bet anyone on the forums that in a few months, if Barak is elected, the cronyism, patronage, waste, lies, pork-bellying, manipulation, run-away tax system and all the other characteristics of politics will assert themselves.

Dinky wrote:

I'm not going to spend an hour writing an argument about why I hate Obama (and McCain), I just don't have the time to argue much anymore. =/

But I will say, that among many other reasons, this video is the reason why he scares me to death (As well as leftists in general):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

I'm pretty sure he's going to win. The mainstream media has the majority of the American idiots convinced that he will save this country (when it doesn't need to be saved).

And to boot, the Republican party has decided to nominate a liberal - someone that no real Republican wants to vote for. They've decided to drop all conservative values.

I might be the only conservative on these forums, that's fine and I don't care; I'm just sharing my thoughts.

You're not the only conservative :wink:

. I also do not like Obama. I get tired of hearing about how great he is and how he is the bringer of hope and change. He doesn't bring much hope to me. The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq, nationalized health care, and every other liberal policy ever concieved. He isn't anything new. He is the same as every other extreme liberal candidate that has ran for the presidency since McGovern. He can keep saying McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, but Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's 2nd term, and honestly I would rather have another 4 years of Bush than 4 years of Carter.

However, I don't absolutely endorse McCain either. He is pretty liberal for a Republican and I didn't want him as the Republican nominee in the first place, but he's the lesser of the 2 evils. Therefore, he will be getting my vote in November.

I'm happy I'm not really a part of this nonsense that is the US presidential election. But in a way it does affect the entire world. If I could vote, I would probably give it to Obama, haven't investigated the other options real much though (if there are any this time). Except for McCain who's an obvious no no.

EDIT; read the article about Nicaragua. Scary shit, I've never even heard about that before.

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Some guys say this is scary, i say, if he does what he says in this video them he will be my personal hero and if he does that i hope all the world do the same, because money for weapons in particular nuclear weapons or for war is wasted money, lets spend that money making better heath care for everyone FOR FREE, better schools and school material, more investment in better and clean energy sources, modernize and evolve the legal system, so that some cases don't take years to solve, etc...

Just to inform that i'm not an American, but we all have the same needs and war is not one of them.

Edit:

Quote:

EDIT; read the article about Nicaragua. Scary shit, I've never even heard about that before.

No shit.

Argoon wrote:

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Some guys say this is scary, i say, if he does what he says in this video them he will be my personal hero and if he does that i hope all the world do the same, because money for weapons in particular nuclear weapons or for war is wasted money, lets spend that money making better heath care for everyone FOR FREE, better schools and school material, more investment in better and clean energy sources, modernize and evolve the legal system, so that some cases don't take years to solve, etc...

Just to inform that i'm not an American, but we all have the same needs and war is not one of them.

I hope you do understand that if he disarms this country, the world is going to hell. I can't believe that you honestly think that everyone wants to live in peace. There are people out in this world have no other intention other than to kill everything in order to gain complete control for themselves.

It is incredibly important for every honest country on this planet to have proper defenses. The fact is, you can't negotiate with people who want to do nothing but kill you, because they're insane and they lead millions of people to their belief.

I believe it is our God given rights as human beings, American or not, to defend ourselves against evil. And even if you don't believe in God - it is our inherent human right to be allowed to defend ourselves. There's nothing wrong with defense of this country, in fact it is a requirement for survival in this world. Disarming a country would be the same as handing it over to terrorists in the Middle-East and China.

john_doe2 wrote:

However, I don't absolutely endorse McCain either. He is pretty liberal for a Republican and I didn't want him as the Republican nominee in the first place, but he's the lesser of the 2 evils. Therefore, he will be getting my vote in November.

He's pretty liberal for a democrat too. He's on the wrong side man.

Doesn't matter. If the republicans win the election (which I don't think will happen), the republicans will say "See! We don't need conservative values to win elections!", so they'll continue to nominate jackasses like McCain. I hate to admit it, but in order to fix the now broken republican party, the democrats have to win this time - if they don't, then we'll have two liberal parties from now on.

Quote:

I hope you do understand that if he disarms this country, the world is going to hell. I can't believe that you honestly think that everyone wants to live in peace.

Err... He's talking about disarming Nuclear war heads. Not disarming Americas Army.

Quote:

There are people out in this world have no other intention other than to kill everything in order to gain complete control for themselves.

When do you think a Nuclear weapon was last used?

Quote:

I believe it is our God given rights as human beings, American or not, to defend ourselves against evil.

With Nuclear weapons...?

Quote:

Disarming a country would be the same as handing it over to terrorists in the Middle-East and China.

It's Nuclear weapons. They will never(hopefully) get used mainly because of the amount of horror and terror they cause, not only do they obliterate everything, but waste the land and spread radiation for hundreds of miles, so even if you do survive the initial blast, a slow painful death awaits you...

In short a Nuclear weapon is a triumph card. The problem is that no-one should have it.

Quote:

There are people out in this world have no other intention other than to kill everything in order to gain complete control for themselves.

And how does a Nuclear Weapon solve that? If America wanted too they could just Nuke Iraq & Afghanistan, solve all their problems. Though at the same time you would be killing Millions of innocent civilians.

Then you got the possible domino effect...

Okay I'm going in.

john_doe2 wrote:

The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq,

What in your opinion would constitute victory in Iraq?

I know very little about Obama but I saw his speech after his priest had said something controversial. What did he say btw? Anyway, I hadn't really paid any attention to him up until then so I thought I'd listen to the man speak and was very impressed. He seemed to speak intelligently and openly which is very unusual for a politician. He didn't evade the issue but instead basically said if you want to talk about race lets talk about it. If he always comes across like that then I can understand why he's so popular. He gives a much better impression than that exremly annoying and virtually brain dead freak show of an excuse for a human being that somehow managed to be in the job now. I'm obviously basing this on sod all, so this outsider is only in a position to say that he seems like a good bloke.

Dinky wrote:

I might be the only conservative on these forums, that's fine and I don't care; I'm just sharing my thoughts.

No you're not!

Obama as President is one scary thought indeed. Ever hear him speak off the cuff without a teleprompter? He bumbles and fumbles as much if not more than Bush. He's an empty suit.

Everyone that likes Obama is being hoodwinked by his charisma.

Mark my words. You will all find out as much if he becomes President.

Listen to these gaffes & out right lies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4gFdKuMYL8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Eo9OMSgU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FD ... re=related

.

Kit89, a nuclear war head is a weapon of defense or offense. And the only reason why nations like the Chinese haven't nuked us already is because they know we have nukes as well, and we have more. We also have countries like Iran that are developing nuke technology behind the world's back.

But they don't even need to develop it, they can just buy it from a laundry list of evil countries, North Korea, China, Pakistan - OR, better yet, American democrats: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 4938.shtml

And Obama constantly talks about disarming this country in everyway. Even in the video he talks about doing more damage than just disabling all global nukes (which won't happen), he talks about slowing all American defense.

It amazes me that these idiots actually think that these evil people are just evil because they just haven't talked to them. "If I just sit down with these people, I can convince them to make peace." That's the dumbest think I've ever heard.

Looking back at WW2, do you think anyone could have sat down with Hitler and negotiated with him in order to stop him from killing more than 5 million people? (More than just Jews.) Because the people that we have to defend ourselves from are just as worse. How are they worse? Because they have nukes too.

The moment America, and other true allies disarm their nukes, we'll all be at war. Or we all might be dead/dying from Radiation.

This is what we should all be saying about these things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

wal wrote:

He gives a much better impression than that exremly annoying and virtually brain dead freak show of an excuse for a human being that somehow managed to be in the job now.

Nice to see the brainwash from mainstream at work. What would constitute victory in Iraq? Destroying the enemy.

It's funny to see Obama when he's off prompter, then contrast it to when he is on prompter. Not only does he flip-flop a lot, but he reminds me of how people make fun of Bush as a speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1s6ld27 ... re=related

And sure, he'll talk about race. But here are some things that he won't talk about:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/b ... _you_c.php

What's really funny is that George Bush is an awful speaker when he is on prompter and reading a speech, but when he's off prompter he's on top of the ball. Nobody thinks this of course, and I don't think many here or anywhere will believe me until I link them to proof, but it's really not important enough anymore to even mention, really.

PBmax, I really don't think everyone will be convinced at how bad he is four years from now. Look at how bad Bill Clinton was and people still like him. Why? Because the mainstream media loved him, and they backed him up, and covered for him when he screwed up. Well... That is until Hillary ran for president. Then their feelings changed and now the media hates the Clintons (and the Clintons are pissed).

Why doesn't anyone notice this kind of stuff in the media?? I don't see how anyone could miss this. They are so incredibly biased and they repeat the same BS all the time to convince people to their views. Just have an open mind, google "Media Watchdog", and watch those websites for just a week, and you'll understand what I'm talking about if you don't already.

But then again, I guess people will believe what they want. Which is often why I don't argue about this stuff.

Russia was your (U.S) enemy some years ago and they add nuclear weapons, did they used them? The only country to ever have used a Nuclear device against people was the U.S, so we need to be "afraid" of you not you of us. :mrgreen:

Why do you think Afghans or any other Muslim country would nuke your ass of? They are not bad people, they are mad with your country because lets face it the U.S as made some dirty things to them, they didn't waked one day and said "lets attack the U.S because we don't like them", they don't attack our country even so we (Portugal) have put our nose in all modern conflicts, also is the U.S government representative of all the American people? No. So why do you think all Muslim are alike just because some more Radical ones behave (in our standers) as crazy?.

I really don't want to offend any of you guys (American users or otherwise), but some of you need to open your eyes and see that not everything that your government says is the the truth, they aren't the "blood sucker vampires" that the media and your government want you to believe, they are people like you or me that would love to be in peace and live a good life.

Also Obama don't seam to be so good as some think he is, 11 million dollars of is campaign are from the Clinton's (read that on a Portuguese journal), don't know if is true but if is, them IMO all this is a shared and Obama or Hillary (Clinton) have the same gools and agendas. But as some said Obama "seams" to be the less of all evils.

In 12 to 18 months time many US citizens will realize there is no such thing as a free lunch in national economy when fighting wars.
Just in case Mr Obama wins facing inevitable tax increases there will be a plethora of conservatives blaming the Democrat Party. If Mr McCain wins tax increases will be much harder to explain. But he can still send the USD even more steeply downwards to devaluate all the war bonds interest payments.
I cannot think of any war ever taking place without requiring the population of the involved parties to pay. Flowering this fact with tax cuts and postponing the payments to subsequent administrations is very weak policy. But as long as of works, why not? Or...?

But when reading this threas as a bystander it appears to me nuclear warheads and arms in General are of more interest to the US than Job security, a solid currency of moderate oil prices.

There is only one thing I want to correct - the reason why China does not "nuke" the US is much less related to US nukes and pales in comparison of how important the US customer is for them to sell their goods.

It's going to be Interesting to see how the public is going to react in 2 years when a vast number of major US corporations will have sold controlling stakes of shares to souvereign wealth funds.

wal wrote:

Okay I'm going in.

john_doe2 wrote:

The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq,

What in your opinion would constitute victory in Iraq?

What would constitute victory for me? A stable, democratic Iraq that is free of extremists and that can stand on its own without US intervention. Same goes for Afghanistan aswell.

This is not a traditional war where you capture the capital city or sign a treaty and all the fighting stops. We can't expect a quick, sudden end to this conflict. We are up against guerrilla fighters who blend into the population and harass their enemies with quick suprise attacks like suicide bombs, car bombs, etc. The only way to win a conflict like this is by having the general populace reject the extremists who are part of the insurgency. Events like this are already happening in Iraq. Recently, Basra was liberated by Iraqi security forces and the residents there are now returning to normal living. You can read about in this link.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... basra.html

The residents of Basra previously had to live under the extremist Mahdi Army which brutally oppressed them if they didn't follow Sharia Law. The majority of Iraqis don't want to live under an oppressive, Islamo-fascist regime where woman aren't even allowed to show their hair or their faces in public and those who do are brutally punished. Many want to have the simple freedoms like having men and women openly study and party together in Universities. Most of them aren't the crazy blood thirsty terrorists that we think of them as.

BNA! wrote:

...
Just get the US administration to sit down and negotiate with Iran. You'll surprised how fast Oil prices can drop since their gains which started with the Iraq war.

The problem runs much deeper here in the US then our relations with Iran. The housing market crash, which is reaching levels equated to the great depression, is having devastating effects that's reaching deep into the economy. The depreciated value of the dollar is weakening it's buying power which is driving up the cost of just about everything.
What's got me worried about both candidates is that they not only are not addressing this issue but are talking about mounting more demands on the taxpayer.
We got one side saying 'we can't drill our way out of this' while the other side says 'we can't tax our way out of it'. It's a friggin' mess here. This problem has been mounting since the 70's and all we've managed to do in over 30 years is become more dependent on imported oil, billions spent in research only to cycle back around to an old idea that moonshiners could've told you over 80 years ago...put some corn lickr in that tank, dang it! If our Gov. is suppose to be run by our best and brightest then we're in for a shitload of trouble.

pendragon wrote:

BNA! wrote:

...
Just get the US administration to sit down and negotiate with Iran. You'll surprised how fast Oil prices can drop since their gains which started with the Iraq war.

The problem runs much deeper here in the US then our relations with Iran. The housing market crash, which is reaching levels equated to the great depression, is having devastating effects that's reaching deep into the economy. The depreciated value of the dollar is weakening it's buying power which is driving up the cost of just about everything.
What's got me worried about both candidates is that they not only are not addressing this issue but are talking about mounting more demands on the taxpayer.
We got one side saying 'we can't drill our way out of this' while the other side says 'we can't tax our way out of it'. It's a friggin' mess here. This problem has been mounting since the 70's and all we've managed to do in over 30 years is become more dependent on imported oil, billions spent in research only to cycle back around to an old idea that moonshiners could've told you over 80 years ago...put some corn lickr in that tank, dang it! If our Gov. is suppose to be run by our best and brightest then we're in for a shitload of trouble.

Well, I have been adressing the Oil price. Part of it is attributed to the depreciated USD, part to investors trying to deleverage themselves with gains from Oil futures, part is increased world wide demand and a large additional part is the global tension regarding Iran as they will block the Oil routes in case of an attack. Not to mention the daily rebel pipeline attack in Africa.

In times of the great depression there was no globalized economy as we know it today. I do not assume things will turn that bad, but if so my nest egg will evaporate as much as the common Americans nest egg will go away for a long time.

The housing crash is bad, yet it has been foreseeable. If you run a country for too long on negative effective interest rates with widespread credit availability you'll end up in bubble trouble. This is especially true of people think they can chew something off their individual house price appreciations by taking multiple mortgages on it. A single family house which is owner occupied cannot get capitalized to eternity. All an owner can spend in addition is the amount of cash he can free by avoiding rental payments after getting out of debt. Anything else is an illusion, not only in the US but also in Ireland or Spain.

You cannot deleverage the financial system in a day or two. This will take more like half a decade.

A large contribution to the current economic mess was the US government trying to wage a war with no consequences on the US tax payer, a novum in history. They printed so much money that the Fed even got ordered not to measure the growth of total money volume any more, at least they got ordered not to release the data anymore. Now where do all these bills go? Selling t-bonds to souvereign wealth funds is good war funding if you want to make your people believe "look, there is a war and you don't have to lay down one penny, in fact we even cut the taxes if you're already rich".

The bills to pay always lay by the middle class. And that is what happens now. I do not think you'll either tax or drill yourself out of the current situation. It takes time and moderate leadership till the country is strong enough again to risk it all in the next round.

The problem the western world has to face right now is to become more independent of fossile energy (for more reasons than just the environment), deleveraging the financial system (raising capital, cutting dividends, cutting jobs, reinstitution of proper credit and rating checks) and avoiding any of these: stagflation, high inflation and deflation.

There are various ways to address these issues, but they all have to play together since this time it is a problem on many fronts. The US cannot lower interest rates any more or has the power to drop more financial stimulus from the sky. Half of their funds got burned in the first half of 2008 and their balance sheet is significantly weakened since they had to take badly performing debt obligations from the market to prevent further collapse. If the financial crisis would have stayed isolated I'd say we'd head for greener pastures same time next year. But the unprecedented increase in Oil cost has created another huge issue. Just imagine a GM bankruptcy - that wont do any good for the people, especially if they sit on an undercollateralized home loan and 18% credit card debt.

I always like how a politician takes on with a poster problem and declares it his mission to solve. One fights terrorism, another high gasoline prices and the next one saves the environment. But none of these honourable men and women can do a thing - the world is big and far too complex to declare prices lower or whatever. Especially since Oil prices are not a supply problem (unlike the 70ies) there is nothing you can really do about it. Maybe call your old friends at Wall Street and tell them to stop trading Oil futures, but that's about it and I doubt it will be overly effective since there are plenty of Wall Streets all around the world and everyone wants to make his cut now.

So the only thing left to do for the politicians would be to behave moderate and avoid anything that could add to increased tensions.

pbmax wrote:

That's it. I have changed my vote to Obama now because he'd make a better barbecue guest.

lol That's going to get him a lot of votes.

pbmax wrote:

goliathvt wrote:

I'm sorry, but it's not the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress that are at fault here...

Ah, wait a second. The democrats have control of both the House & Senate with uber liberal Nancy Pelosi as speaker. So why have they not ended the war? Hmmm?

"Bringing the war to an end is my highest priority as Speaker." - Nancy Pelosi November 17, 2006

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy ... 34393.html

Where's the outrage over this? Nancy hasn't done a damn thing to end the war. Nothing! The Democrats can stop the funding but they don't. Why are you not raging against your own party? Hmmm?

The damage has been done now. If we were to just leave it would through the country in chaos and civil war.

pendragon wrote:

ZippyDSMlee wrote:

pbmax/pendragon
SO lets blame the dims for the corruptions in Washington and the the "Heil! for the profits!" mentalities that drive it?

I named Pelosi explicitely because she is the one that said it. No partisan politics here.
Even Cindy Sheehan is upset about Pelosi's broken promise on Iraq and she calls herself a Liberal. So it's not a partisan attack but a statement on the... let's call it 'incomplete truth' Pelosi used to get herself elected.

Quote:

Sadly the 2 party system is broken and is a racket to perpetuate the illusion of choice while maintaining those with power with more power.

I agree with that. The system doesn't work unless you have honest, reasonable people partake in it. When all ability to reason flies out the window because the only thing that matters is party affiliation then the people are not being served fairly and the system and society suffers greatly.

Politics=cluster fck,as long is one is lubed and prepared for the carnage all is well I guess LOL

The current system needs more sternness in keeping its officials out of the gutter lanes, giving money to elected officials should be considered treason, the current system is to attached to the money tit on top heavy organizations non of which care abotu the nation or its people....

This place seems to have some bright minds here, anyone posted,raving,ranting about the gas situation yet?

I'll be buying a motorcycle as soon as I can save up the money.

rich_is_bored wrote:

I'll be buying a motorcycle as soon as I can save up the money.

I am going with a motorized mountain bike..., fi I a going to spend 2G on a vehicle its goign to be at least 3 wheels and the japanase mini trucks are abotu 4G used, hell you can buy a touring motorbike for twice as much.
40MPG, the 500-6XXCC 4 cyclender engine makes it alil easier to fix than a normal car or truck the main down side highway is a no no and some city's refuse to let you make ATVs and alt vehicles street legal even if they have lights and mirrors...

http://www.allamericanminitrucks.com/in ... /index.htm
http://www.japaneseminitrucks.com/

You might have to dance with city regulations to get tags for it tho... rual areas are much more kind to them.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m excited to think that the United States may finally end its racist monopoly on the country’s highest position of power. For all of our bullshit and crowing about freedom and our progressive democracy, the U.S. is one of the few democratic nations on the planet that has yet to see a woman and/or person who is not of the dominant race in this position of power. And, out of the choices that we Americans have faced for that office over the last 8, or even I’d go as far as to say 16 years, Barack Obama is the best candidate I’ve seen on the docket.

He speaks of hope. He has an understanding of issues of both race and class that, from what I can tell, is unparalleled to any past president. He seems grounded in a sense of fairness and rationality. He was spoon-fed the same bullshit yet still managed to vote with his conscience when going to war with Iraq. He’s able to form an argument and defend his position with useful, informed perspectives… something I have really missed ever since George took the reigns. Just the simple instance of hearing someone make a logical case for something they believe in has been so rare these past 8 years. But most importantly, he seems willing to listen to other people and is not afraid to have his ideas challenged… which I’d say is the opposite of our current president, who is so afraid of ideas outside the party line that he insulates himself from them almost entirely.

So yes, Barak is the best choice. Far better than anything Clinton had to offer… although what a shame that Hillary had to essentially paint herself as an aggressive, aloof hardliner in order to compete with the likes of the (republican) competition. I understand why she did it… electability and sexism. If she had been any less callous about her stance on the war or shown any signs of compassion, she would be labeled weak by the male population (and the many women who have been brainwashed by the system to consider such qualities a frailty).

I don’t think I need to go into why Barak is better than McCain considering that McCain is just as willing as the current administration to spin the truth. My favorite, tell-tale quote from McCain is the line about how, when he visited Iraq, he could walk “down the streets [of Baghdad] with no body armor on…” to which any number of news outlets then cut to photos of McCain wearing body armor, he and his delegation guarded by over 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks and 2 Apache gunships overhead ensuring the area was safe. Clicky for more McCain bullshit. McCain, to me, is just another branch of the extremely privileged, out-of-touch with reality elites that think they know what’s best for us little people.

But why do I think Barak is only the best out of the available choices and not a glowing candidate in and of himself?

With Hillary out of the race, Obama promptly declared on CNBC: “I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market.” Jason Furman is heading up his economic policy. Mr. Furman is a Wal-Mart supporter who thinks the people who are desperately trying to get Wally World to raise its wages are the problem, not the fact that Wal-Mart pays extremely substandard wages and cuts corners in nearly every way possible regarding benefits and compensation. Hell, Wal-Mart is one of the biggest drains on government hand-out programs since it actually suggests that its employees make use of federal programs so that the company doesn’t have to worry about things like health insurance (Medicaid and other taxpayer subsidized health services) or paying enough money on which a family could live (food stamps usage has shown to drastically increase once a Wal-Mart moves into town).

Let’s step away from economics and markets and take a look at foreign affairs. Obama has said that he supports an “undivided Jerusalem” as the capital of Israel. Not even Bush has been this myopic and callous regarding both the UN Resolution and international consensus that regards Jerusalem as an international city.

Obama has also decided to continue the embargo against Cuba… which, last time I checked, was in violation of so many human rights that every government of the United States since the beginning of the embargo (1962) could literally have crimes against humanity charges successfully brought against them for supporting it.

And then there’s the reappearance of the Monroe Doctrine in his speeches… or at least the spirit of it. For those unfamiliar with the term, the Monroe Doctrine has been used by politicians to sanction U.S. military and covert intervention in Latin America since its inception. When we don’t like the way a democratically elected government is running things, Monroe tells us we have the right to support death squads and Contra forces to beat the population to an utter pulp until that country’s government is forced to stop its socially-minded programs for the poor and working class and spend its money and time on defending its borders and civilian population (Nicaragua). Or, it means we have the right to support brutal dictatorships or carry out coups to install tyrants and thugs as long as they keep the way paved for U.S. investors (Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.) . Read my article on Nicaragua for one example. If more info is needed here, ask here, I'll gladly go into detail.

Obama has been quoted as saying we have “lost Latin America” (makes you wonder why we’re entitled to possess it in the first place…) and has talked about other ways we should be using our influence within the continent. Considering how many names of Latin American countries you can type into Google with the words “coup,” “dictatorship,” or “death squads” and then add “United States” and come up with a large number of hits detailing our sordid history within those lands, you would hope our best choice for president would be a little bit more aware of what he was saying….

And then there’s Iraq. Will Obama end the war he initially voted against? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. Even though the Barak Obama website claims we will “have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months,” Americans should understand that merely means we will have, at best, half our troops home. It says nothing of the military training forces, mercenary troops, no-bid contractors and commercial enterprises that have been bleeding the country and its resources dry since they set foot in Iraq.

And, even if we did somehow miraculously pull all of our troops out of Iraq, Obama thinks we need to “finish the fight in Afghanistan” (Obama’s website). Okay, so Obama was against the obviously misguided war against Iraq. But saying we need to finish the fight in Afghanistan means he thinks it's a conflict that is worth fighting… that we “should” be there. I do not share this view.

The purpose for attacking Afghanistan was to respond to the attacks of 9/11. Yet, even when the Taliban gave us an opportunity to bring the supposed mastermind of the attacks to justice (first they asked for evidence against Osama, then later offered to give him up w/o that requirement), we opted to dismiss their offer and proceeded to bomb the hell out of the civilian population. Since “we don’t do body counts” (Gen. Tommy Franks), we’ll never know the true number of civilian casualties… yet I can imagine that the continuing occupation of Afghanistan has only made it more difficult to distinguish civilian from “insurgent” as those fighting the U.S. and its allies have had to resort to guerrilla-style warfare in order to survive. (Hey, we did it vs the British, too.) Thankfully, some people have tried to keep a tally.

Afghanistan also paved the way for Iraq as it allowed us access to areas within the Middle East from which we could launch attacks, position troops and gather intel (for what little good that did us… heh). With these things in mind, I see the war raging in Afghanistan as little more than a punching bag to satisfy our need for vendetta for the crimes committed against us in September several years ago.

Now, for those of you who believe the War on Terror is a just cause, you may want to make sure you’ve thought the whole thing through thoroughly. My views on the subject are readily available.

So, yeah, Obama is the best choice out of a series of crappy ones. Let’s hope his desire for change keeps his mind open and flexible in the years to come if he indeed succeeds in becoming our nation’s next president.

(Originally from one of my blog posts.)

goliathvt wrote:

So, yeah, Obama is the best choice out of a series of crappy ones.

I 100% agree. It's better to have a pile of dried twigs vs a pile of wet twigs. Neither will help in the long run but the dry ones will at least make you THINK you'll survive 0 degrees f (~-20c).

Obama will send the country down in a near never-ending spiral of failure just like the other would. he's just not BSing about it like McCain is. He's admitting it & people love it. I'll have to take the opposite stance of his wife's current views if he goes through with what he promises if he's elected: I won't be proud to call myself an american.

I'm for Ralph Nader.

I'm not going to spend an hour writing an argument about why I hate Obama (and McCain), I just don't have the time to argue much anymore. =/

But I will say, that among many other reasons, this video is the reason why he scares me to death (As well as leftists in general):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

I'm pretty sure he's going to win. The mainstream media has the majority of the American idiots convinced that he will save this country (when it doesn't need to be saved).

And to boot, the Republican party has decided to nominate a liberal - someone that no real Republican wants to vote for. They've decided to drop all conservative values.

I might be the only conservative on these forums, that's fine and I don't care; I'm just sharing my thoughts.

If he makes 'bad' moves, he will end up in the morgue just like Kenedy. Nothing will change.

I think that's the first honest critique I've heard about Obama. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough but I've sort of tuned it all out. He's a Muslim, his middle name is Hussein, or his pastor said something nasty, as if that's the basis for choosing a good president.

I've heard him give the occasional speech and I tried to watch the debates for both parties. And from what I've seen and heard from him he's left a good impression.

But he's not my first choice. I was really hoping for Ron Paul but that train went off the tracks a long time ago. He was the only guy who was as fervently against the war as I am.

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for in the general election. All I can say with certainty is that it won't be McCain.

As for the touchy subject of a possible assassination with an Obama presidency, that's very likely irrespective of what he does in office. And I really hope things don't play out that way because I imagine we'll see something like the LA riots, only all across the country.

Well, making a long distance call from Europe:

Benjamin Franklin

As far as more available choices are concerned I do really think the downside of democracy is that a candidate has to cater to the taste of the masses. As long as the masses are well educated and can tell "campaigning" from "making a point" democracy works well.

If a country even considers to publicly discuss the abilities of a candidate by rallying people up on middle name choices or physical disabilities like how far you can stretch your arms out, then democracy turns into an idiocracy.

Press has changed from reporting news to a new style called alarmism. Rather than dissecting election campaigns and analysing the pros and cons of each candidate they focus on middle names, age concerns, how much they spend on a haircut and equally important long term presidential qualities.

How on earth can something good come out of such a process?

During this election run-up I've heard some very disturbing opinions by some voters. I love those ones that professed, "I'll vote for Hillary because she's a women", or "Barak because he's black". Mind you since the whole process is sad joke I guess skin colour or gender are as valid as any of the other criteria. Still to base your vote on that is just wrong.

Furthermore, many people believe that somehow this time it's going to different, that Barak will be different. Come on, how many more times does Joe-public need to get lied to, manipulated, over-taxed, and basically screwed by the government before people reject the current system? It seems the only criteria these days is wealth and profile. I'm like the next person who "hopes", and likes to think someone with honour, honesty and integrity will deliver us, the quivering masses, from ourselves and be our savour. Sadly I lost that notion when I turned 14 and started to understand the political system and politicians.

And I guess while others get excited at this sort of change, and sincerely think things will be different, it isn't going to be, and the whole rotten structure will keep on churning, benefiting those in power and keeping the average person disconnected from their government and under control. I can't believe how short the voting public's memory is. And if trends of voter turn-out continue they way they have been over the last few years, more and more people will be tuning out.

I'll bet anyone on the forums that in a few months, if Barak is elected, the cronyism, patronage, waste, lies, pork-bellying, manipulation, run-away tax system and all the other characteristics of politics will assert themselves.

Dinky wrote:

I'm not going to spend an hour writing an argument about why I hate Obama (and McCain), I just don't have the time to argue much anymore. =/

But I will say, that among many other reasons, this video is the reason why he scares me to death (As well as leftists in general):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

I'm pretty sure he's going to win. The mainstream media has the majority of the American idiots convinced that he will save this country (when it doesn't need to be saved).

And to boot, the Republican party has decided to nominate a liberal - someone that no real Republican wants to vote for. They've decided to drop all conservative values.

I might be the only conservative on these forums, that's fine and I don't care; I'm just sharing my thoughts.

You're not the only conservative :wink:

. I also do not like Obama. I get tired of hearing about how great he is and how he is the bringer of hope and change. He doesn't bring much hope to me. The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq, nationalized health care, and every other liberal policy ever concieved. He isn't anything new. He is the same as every other extreme liberal candidate that has ran for the presidency since McGovern. He can keep saying McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, but Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's 2nd term, and honestly I would rather have another 4 years of Bush than 4 years of Carter.

However, I don't absolutely endorse McCain either. He is pretty liberal for a Republican and I didn't want him as the Republican nominee in the first place, but he's the lesser of the 2 evils. Therefore, he will be getting my vote in November.

I'm happy I'm not really a part of this nonsense that is the US presidential election. But in a way it does affect the entire world. If I could vote, I would probably give it to Obama, haven't investigated the other options real much though (if there are any this time). Except for McCain who's an obvious no no.

EDIT; read the article about Nicaragua. Scary shit, I've never even heard about that before.

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Some guys say this is scary, i say, if he does what he says in this video them he will be my personal hero and if he does that i hope all the world do the same, because money for weapons in particular nuclear weapons or for war is wasted money, lets spend that money making better heath care for everyone FOR FREE, better schools and school material, more investment in better and clean energy sources, modernize and evolve the legal system, so that some cases don't take years to solve, etc...

Just to inform that i'm not an American, but we all have the same needs and war is not one of them.

Edit:

Quote:

EDIT; read the article about Nicaragua. Scary shit, I've never even heard about that before.

No shit.

Argoon wrote:

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Some guys say this is scary, i say, if he does what he says in this video them he will be my personal hero and if he does that i hope all the world do the same, because money for weapons in particular nuclear weapons or for war is wasted money, lets spend that money making better heath care for everyone FOR FREE, better schools and school material, more investment in better and clean energy sources, modernize and evolve the legal system, so that some cases don't take years to solve, etc...

Just to inform that i'm not an American, but we all have the same needs and war is not one of them.

I hope you do understand that if he disarms this country, the world is going to hell. I can't believe that you honestly think that everyone wants to live in peace. There are people out in this world have no other intention other than to kill everything in order to gain complete control for themselves.

It is incredibly important for every honest country on this planet to have proper defenses. The fact is, you can't negotiate with people who want to do nothing but kill you, because they're insane and they lead millions of people to their belief.

I believe it is our God given rights as human beings, American or not, to defend ourselves against evil. And even if you don't believe in God - it is our inherent human right to be allowed to defend ourselves. There's nothing wrong with defense of this country, in fact it is a requirement for survival in this world. Disarming a country would be the same as handing it over to terrorists in the Middle-East and China.

john_doe2 wrote:

However, I don't absolutely endorse McCain either. He is pretty liberal for a Republican and I didn't want him as the Republican nominee in the first place, but he's the lesser of the 2 evils. Therefore, he will be getting my vote in November.

He's pretty liberal for a democrat too. He's on the wrong side man.

Doesn't matter. If the republicans win the election (which I don't think will happen), the republicans will say "See! We don't need conservative values to win elections!", so they'll continue to nominate jackasses like McCain. I hate to admit it, but in order to fix the now broken republican party, the democrats have to win this time - if they don't, then we'll have two liberal parties from now on.

Quote:

I hope you do understand that if he disarms this country, the world is going to hell. I can't believe that you honestly think that everyone wants to live in peace.

Err... He's talking about disarming Nuclear war heads. Not disarming Americas Army.

Quote:

There are people out in this world have no other intention other than to kill everything in order to gain complete control for themselves.

When do you think a Nuclear weapon was last used?

Quote:

I believe it is our God given rights as human beings, American or not, to defend ourselves against evil.

With Nuclear weapons...?

Quote:

Disarming a country would be the same as handing it over to terrorists in the Middle-East and China.

It's Nuclear weapons. They will never(hopefully) get used mainly because of the amount of horror and terror they cause, not only do they obliterate everything, but waste the land and spread radiation for hundreds of miles, so even if you do survive the initial blast, a slow painful death awaits you...

In short a Nuclear weapon is a triumph card. The problem is that no-one should have it.

Quote:

There are people out in this world have no other intention other than to kill everything in order to gain complete control for themselves.

And how does a Nuclear Weapon solve that? If America wanted too they could just Nuke Iraq & Afghanistan, solve all their problems. Though at the same time you would be killing Millions of innocent civilians.

Then you got the possible domino effect...

Okay I'm going in.

john_doe2 wrote:

The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq,

What in your opinion would constitute victory in Iraq?

I know very little about Obama but I saw his speech after his priest had said something controversial. What did he say btw? Anyway, I hadn't really paid any attention to him up until then so I thought I'd listen to the man speak and was very impressed. He seemed to speak intelligently and openly which is very unusual for a politician. He didn't evade the issue but instead basically said if you want to talk about race lets talk about it. If he always comes across like that then I can understand why he's so popular. He gives a much better impression than that exremly annoying and virtually brain dead freak show of an excuse for a human being that somehow managed to be in the job now. I'm obviously basing this on sod all, so this outsider is only in a position to say that he seems like a good bloke.

Dinky wrote:

I might be the only conservative on these forums, that's fine and I don't care; I'm just sharing my thoughts.

No you're not!

Obama as President is one scary thought indeed. Ever hear him speak off the cuff without a teleprompter? He bumbles and fumbles as much if not more than Bush. He's an empty suit.

Everyone that likes Obama is being hoodwinked by his charisma.

Mark my words. You will all find out as much if he becomes President.

Listen to these gaffes & out right lies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4gFdKuMYL8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Eo9OMSgU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FD ... re=related

.

Kit89, a nuclear war head is a weapon of defense or offense. And the only reason why nations like the Chinese haven't nuked us already is because they know we have nukes as well, and we have more. We also have countries like Iran that are developing nuke technology behind the world's back.

But they don't even need to develop it, they can just buy it from a laundry list of evil countries, North Korea, China, Pakistan - OR, better yet, American democrats: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 4938.shtml

And Obama constantly talks about disarming this country in everyway. Even in the video he talks about doing more damage than just disabling all global nukes (which won't happen), he talks about slowing all American defense.

It amazes me that these idiots actually think that these evil people are just evil because they just haven't talked to them. "If I just sit down with these people, I can convince them to make peace." That's the dumbest think I've ever heard.

Looking back at WW2, do you think anyone could have sat down with Hitler and negotiated with him in order to stop him from killing more than 5 million people? (More than just Jews.) Because the people that we have to defend ourselves from are just as worse. How are they worse? Because they have nukes too.

The moment America, and other true allies disarm their nukes, we'll all be at war. Or we all might be dead/dying from Radiation.

This is what we should all be saying about these things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

wal wrote:

He gives a much better impression than that exremly annoying and virtually brain dead freak show of an excuse for a human being that somehow managed to be in the job now.

Nice to see the brainwash from mainstream at work. What would constitute victory in Iraq? Destroying the enemy.

It's funny to see Obama when he's off prompter, then contrast it to when he is on prompter. Not only does he flip-flop a lot, but he reminds me of how people make fun of Bush as a speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1s6ld27 ... re=related

And sure, he'll talk about race. But here are some things that he won't talk about:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/b ... _you_c.php

What's really funny is that George Bush is an awful speaker when he is on prompter and reading a speech, but when he's off prompter he's on top of the ball. Nobody thinks this of course, and I don't think many here or anywhere will believe me until I link them to proof, but it's really not important enough anymore to even mention, really.

PBmax, I really don't think everyone will be convinced at how bad he is four years from now. Look at how bad Bill Clinton was and people still like him. Why? Because the mainstream media loved him, and they backed him up, and covered for him when he screwed up. Well... That is until Hillary ran for president. Then their feelings changed and now the media hates the Clintons (and the Clintons are pissed).

Why doesn't anyone notice this kind of stuff in the media?? I don't see how anyone could miss this. They are so incredibly biased and they repeat the same BS all the time to convince people to their views. Just have an open mind, google "Media Watchdog", and watch those websites for just a week, and you'll understand what I'm talking about if you don't already.

But then again, I guess people will believe what they want. Which is often why I don't argue about this stuff.

Russia was your (U.S) enemy some years ago and they add nuclear weapons, did they used them? The only country to ever have used a Nuclear device against people was the U.S, so we need to be "afraid" of you not you of us. :mrgreen:

Why do you think Afghans or any other Muslim country would nuke your ass of? They are not bad people, they are mad with your country because lets face it the U.S as made some dirty things to them, they didn't waked one day and said "lets attack the U.S because we don't like them", they don't attack our country even so we (Portugal) have put our nose in all modern conflicts, also is the U.S government representative of all the American people? No. So why do you think all Muslim are alike just because some more Radical ones behave (in our standers) as crazy?.

I really don't want to offend any of you guys (American users or otherwise), but some of you need to open your eyes and see that not everything that your government says is the the truth, they aren't the "blood sucker vampires" that the media and your government want you to believe, they are people like you or me that would love to be in peace and live a good life.

Also Obama don't seam to be so good as some think he is, 11 million dollars of is campaign are from the Clinton's (read that on a Portuguese journal), don't know if is true but if is, them IMO all this is a shared and Obama or Hillary (Clinton) have the same gools and agendas. But as some said Obama "seams" to be the less of all evils.

In 12 to 18 months time many US citizens will realize there is no such thing as a free lunch in national economy when fighting wars.
Just in case Mr Obama wins facing inevitable tax increases there will be a plethora of conservatives blaming the Democrat Party. If Mr McCain wins tax increases will be much harder to explain. But he can still send the USD even more steeply downwards to devaluate all the war bonds interest payments.
I cannot think of any war ever taking place without requiring the population of the involved parties to pay. Flowering this fact with tax cuts and postponing the payments to subsequent administrations is very weak policy. But as long as of works, why not? Or...?

But when reading this threas as a bystander it appears to me nuclear warheads and arms in General are of more interest to the US than Job security, a solid currency of moderate oil prices.

There is only one thing I want to correct - the reason why China does not "nuke" the US is much less related to US nukes and pales in comparison of how important the US customer is for them to sell their goods.

It's going to be Interesting to see how the public is going to react in 2 years when a vast number of major US corporations will have sold controlling stakes of shares to souvereign wealth funds.

wal wrote:

Okay I'm going in.

john_doe2 wrote:

The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq,

What in your opinion would constitute victory in Iraq?

What would constitute victory for me? A stable, democratic Iraq that is free of extremists and that can stand on its own without US intervention. Same goes for Afghanistan aswell.

This is not a traditional war where you capture the capital city or sign a treaty and all the fighting stops. We can't expect a quick, sudden end to this conflict. We are up against guerrilla fighters who blend into the population and harass their enemies with quick suprise attacks like suicide bombs, car bombs, etc. The only way to win a conflict like this is by having the general populace reject the extremists who are part of the insurgency. Events like this are already happening in Iraq. Recently, Basra was liberated by Iraqi security forces and the residents there are now returning to normal living. You can read about in this link.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... basra.html

The residents of Basra previously had to live under the extremist Mahdi Army which brutally oppressed them if they didn't follow Sharia Law. The majority of Iraqis don't want to live under an oppressive, Islamo-fascist regime where woman aren't even allowed to show their hair or their faces in public and those who do are brutally punished. Many want to have the simple freedoms like having men and women openly study and party together in Universities. Most of them aren't the crazy blood thirsty terrorists that we think of them as.

Dinky wrote:

But they don't even need to develop it, they can just buy it from a laundry list of evil countries, North Korea, China, Pakistan - OR, better yet, American democrats: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 4938.shtml

Wow, that source of yours is one of the worst researched pieces of garbage and speculation I've read in a while. For all their mistakes George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton and, hell, even Regan at the end of his term, did a few things to curb the spread of nuclear arms. However, it was our "victory" over Russia in the Cold War and the hardline conservatives who voted against Clinton's measure to ensure that Russia's nukes wouldn't get into "the wrong hands" during the country's economic collapse. Furthermore, the policies of the Bush Jr. administration have only worsened things: Countries like N. Korea have learned that we'll deal with them diplomatically if they have nukes. The "possibility" of nukes is what is keeping us out of Iran. Bush Jr. has put the possibility of "loose nukes" a lot higher on the list than any other presidency.

Quote:

[In 2004,] Department of Energy's Nonproliferation Programs with Russia concluded: "The most urgent, unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction of weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home." This bipartisan report called for the US to develop and implement a ten-year $30 billion plan to bring Russian nuclear weapons and materials under control. The Bush administration has been spending at a rate of less than half this amount and has made little progress.

- Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Examining the Policies of Bush and Kerry
by David Krieger, October 2004

That report was in 2004. The Bush administration has continued to underfund the project while making threats against places like Iran (who, again, have watched how we've dealt with N. Korea and how differently we've dealt with Iraq and have gotten the picture: Nuke up fast or we'll invade, bomb or bully the fuck out of you). Bush administration spokespeople have also openly talked about how nukes are "not off the table" when military options are under consideration. Now... using a nuke as a last resort during a World War is one thing... but brandishing the notion around as part of military planning is just fucking batshit insane. If anything, it's language like that that should scare the living shit out of you, not the words of Obama who is merely suggesting that we stick to the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaties we have already signed.

Quote:

And Obama constantly talks about disarming this country... he talks about slowing all American defense.

We spend more on arms and military expenses than any other country on the planet. The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China (Source). Cutting this back a little bit will not be the end of the world nor will it really weaken our position of military dominance in the world. After all, the "new battlefield" is not State vs State but State versus small groups of extremists. In fact, holding nukes and paying the huge costs required to keep them in service is just a sign that we're lagging behind in our understanding of the world stage and its theater of conflicts. If you haven't figured out why we're getting our asses kicked in both Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe you should read what both liberal and conservative military advisers have been saying for years: you can't fight terrorist cells with jet planes, tanks, and bombs. Instead, you need a high volume of human intelligence gatherers, trustworthy police forces and a lot of communication between all elements. Good police work brings down terrorists. Unfortunately, Bush has undermined the intelligence gathering services of the United States through budget cuts, manpower cuts and focusing entirely on the wrong issues. Despite our knowledge of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, for example, Bush ruined the task force that had been tracking and attempting to kill him during Clinton's tenure and cut back our number of operatives in Middle Eastern countries... and instead put a focus on unmanned drones, satellites and shit like that.

Quote:

Looking back at WW2, do you think anyone could have sat down with Hitler and negotiated with him in order to stop him from killing more than 5 million people?

Actually, I'd say "possibly." Hitler wouldn't have accepted, but negotiations with him probably would have been better than supporting him like we did for years... especially financial support from our banking community (Bush's ancestors, specifically, were a great help to the Nazis) and our unwillingness to take in Jewish refugees... we turned hundreds of thousands of boats around and sent them back to their deaths. It wasn't until one of our military bases (Pearl Harbor) was attacked that we gave a fat flying fuck.

Quote:

What would constitute victory in Iraq? Destroying the enemy.

Define the enemy. Please. Seriously, describe, in detail the enemy and tell us exactly how to find said foe. Be sure to include how we can tell the enemy apart from a civilian. Our military certainly can't figure it out. Neither can our intelligence services. The number of innocents killed in these two wars and the number of people rotting in jail without even a charge filed against them confirm this.

Quote:

Why doesn't anyone notice this kind of stuff in the media?? I don't see how anyone could miss this. They are so incredibly biased and they repeat the same BS all the time to convince people to their views.

That's interesting. We're in Iraq because the media was "so incredibly biased and they repeat[ed] the same BS all the time to convince people of [the Bush administration's] views."

john_doe2 wrote:

wal wrote:

Okay I'm going in.

john_doe2 wrote:

The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq,

What in your opinion would constitute victory in Iraq?

What would constitute victory for me? A stable, democratic Iraq that is free of extremists and that can stand on its own without US intervention. Same goes for Afghanistan aswell.

THERE WERE NO EXTREMISTS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SEE IN IRAQ TODAY UNTIL THE UNITED STATES INVADED.

Sure, there were hardline elements, but our favorite extremist, Saddam, our good buddy and pal, kept them in line for us. Right now, the Bush Administration's choices have given Al Qaeda an amazing opportunity: They can flood Iraq with extremists and fight against their toughest enemy in conditions that best suit them.

The British wrote:

We are up against guerrilla fighters who blend into the population and harass their enemies with quick suprise attacks.

Hmm sounds like an occupying force facing off against what many would consider "freedom fighters." I think I recall something similar being said a few hundred years ago by those Red Coat guys.

Quote:

The only way to win a conflict like this is by having the general populace reject the extremists who are part of the insurgency. Events like this are already happening in Iraq.

This is bullshit. The U.S. has made such little headway winning over the hearts and minds of the people because it is morally wrong and completely inept at understanding the cultural differences and laundry list of grievances that have been piling up every since we started dropping bombs on the country.

And what are they? Well let's just quote that same article of yours:

Quote:

“The government gives us food rations, but it is not enough. We are all tired,” Chitaya Mashhan Madloon said as she pushed through the crowd at a market, using her black robe to wipe sweat from her forehead.

Many worry the neglect could ignite more violence.

“The services are getting worse, they're not getting better. This is creating ill will toward the government,” said Mustafa Mahdi Hussein, the dean of Basra University's college of administration and economics.

Hussein said unemployment posed a security risk because idle young men are vulnerable to militia recruitment.

“We need to give them work to do. You can't just keep expanding the military operations. If you talk to anybody, they just want three things – electricity, water and safety,” he added during a recent interview in his office.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... basra.html

So yeah, I'm happy that these people have to live under a slightly less tyrannical group of people. But I'm sure they'll be subjected to insulting house searches, random incarcerations, curfews and even more checkpoints, just like every other area controlled by the U.S./Iraqi military forces.

And do you really think these "Shiite gunmen" extremists have disappeared into thin air? Remember how many times the U.S. thought it had been making progress in Fallujah? Yah, exactly.

pbmax wrote:

.

I agree!

The US hasn't always been entirely forth coming about their current weapon/defence capabilities. Why do you expect the rest of the world to be any different? There's no denying that nukes are the mother of all deterrents. Although if people think that they shouldn't be in the hands of people who can't be trusted with them then the US should be the first to disarm! And you can take back the ones you've got in England (not that far from where I live) while you're at it. Do we look like a fucking weapons bunker?

There's no such thing as an evil county! It's really not nice to see the brainwashing from the mainstream at work. For the most part, good and evil don't exist outside of fairytales. There aren't many truly evil people in this world and giving everything for a cause that they believe in doesn't sound like it would really appeal to an evil person. Few radicals are insane and those that are couldn't lead millions of people to think like them. People aren't that stupid. That many people can't be completely wrong. They must at least have a point. Every terrorist believes that they're doing the right thing. Why is that so hard for some people to grasp? I'm beginning to suspect that it's not a picture of you for your avatar is it? :cry:

I don't know why the comparison to ww2 keeps cropping up. The two situations are nothing alike! For a start their motivation is the exact opposite. The current “war” is against an enemy fuelled by hatred of us. You mainly. This makes them terrorists. The Nazi movement was fuelled by love of themselves. We are the master race, we are the light, we know what's best for everyone. Ring any bells? This make them fascist dictators. That made them much more of an organised tangible threat (that could be realistically challenged) than groups of really pissed off people spread throughout a wide area mixed in with sympathisers, scared opposers and people who just want a nice peaceful life. To the terrorists, we are the fascist dictators. You mainly.

Dinky wrote:

wal wrote:

He gives a much better impression than that exremly annoying and virtually brain dead freak show of an excuse for a human being that somehow managed to be in the job now.

Nice to see the brainwash from mainstream at work. What would constitute victory in Iraq? Destroying the enemy.

Not at all. All my opinions are my own I assure you. I live in England so there's really nothing much in the media on the subject to even try to brainwash me. Besides, I've always hated the c***.

john_doe2 wrote:

wal wrote:

Okay I'm going in.

john_doe2 wrote:

The only changes he brings is defeat in Iraq,

What in your opinion would constitute victory in Iraq?

What would constitute victory for me? A stable, democratic Iraq that is free of extremists and that can stand on its own without US intervention. Same goes for Afghanistan aswell.

I wouldn't hold your breath with Afghanistan. And a stable democratic nation that has had democracy forced on them might prove challenging. Besides, you shouldn't force people to do things your way. That's exactly the type of thing that pisses people off. Okay let me put this another way: What would have to happen for us to be able to confidently say that the enemy in Iraq has been destroyed?

It's very easy to say that people have been brainwashed by the media and fooled by a politicians charisma. Isn't that basically saying that the majority of people don't agree with me and have been convinced by the rational arguments of an intelligent man? Maybe people are aware of the biased media and just happen to agree with Abamas policies. Like I said, I know nothing about him and have only listened to him properly once. I was just commenting that he came across very well. He even made me want to vote for him. And lets face it, democracy is by definition, a glorified popularity contest. Yes there are people like a lot of us who have established political views and aren't easily lead, but a decent candidate is worth more than a few votes. But I believe what people are seeing is a fundamental change in the psyche of the US as a whole, which is long overdue. The US is not the centre of existence, or even the best thing that's ever happened to this planet. I know it seems scary now but it's true and it really is about time you Bushites learned this stuff. Seriously, it's very important!

pbmax, dinky and john_doe2...

You guys are not alone

As far as it concerns me, the person I absolutely did not want to become president, is out of the game.

Infact now with Hillary gone (God bless the states), for me personally I think both Obama and McCain will do the right thing... A slow and controlled retreat from Iraq... Despite all original expectations it became obvious in the long run that it did more harm than good...

Understanding the Bush administration not being able to step back from that decision (for several reasons) with a new president the door for a retreat is open...

Dinky wrote:

PBmax, I really don't think everyone will be convinced at how bad he is four years from now.

i think it will be much quicker, not unlike Jimmy Carter.

here's more funny Barack Hussein Obama videos that tarnishes his charisma a bit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poCfutKN ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGymYfJ61R0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ds-s0-IEY

he doesn't even understand the difference between Veterans Day & Memorial Day. he's an empty suit people.

Yes, yes.. and Bush didn't know if there were black people in South America.... what's your point? I mean, really, if you want to go toe to toe with this bullshit, that's fine, but getting a date wrong and saying "Uh" a few times is hardly the same as the types of blunders we're used to with Bush or even McCain... the latter quoted as saying that "Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training..." to which his advisers quickly stepped in and said, "Extremists, not Al Qaeda." So, yah this nominee who needs no "on the job training" is clearly up on his stuff.

You mentioned something about Obama and flip-flopping earlier. Here's my response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2 ... re=related

Yes, and I'm sure you've never stuttered or said 'uh' and 'uhm', pbmax, the overly religious fanatic.

It is possible to make a perfectly valid point, deliver it with death proof accuracy and take out your target without name calling.

I wouldn't call it name calling as much as I'd call it gross exaggeration and oversimplification, which is exactly what pbmax is doing. With all due respect to everyone involved.

goliathvt wrote:

Yes, yes.. and Bush didn't know if there were black people in South America.... what's your point? I mean, really, if you want to go toe to toe with this bullshit, that's fine, but getting a date wrong and saying "Uh" a few times is hardly the same as the types of blunders we're used to with Bush or even McCain... the latter quoted as saying that "Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training..." to which his advisers quickly stepped in and said, "Extremists, not Al Qaeda." So, yah this nominee who needs no "on the job training" is clearly up on his stuff.

You mentioned something about Obama and flip-flopping earlier. Here's my response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2 ... re=related

Barack Hussein Obama didn't get a date wrong. He took a look at the Clinton's play book and then made up a story to make himself look better to his audience. In other words, he outright lied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaG6s05MKeM

He's a phony and an empty suit. He's not going to bring about "CHANGE" to Washington other than there will be a liberal democrat in the White House rather than a liberal republican. His advisors are all past Clintonites. Its going to be politics as usual with him.

Change, change, change... ok we get it. Now tell us what you're going to change and how. He can't and won't.

And I never said a word about Bush or McCain. I don't like McCain either and Bush isn't on the ticket.

The two headed monster of the American media & Washington politics is like cancer. I can't stand either candidate. I can't stand the American mainstream media. I can't stand the current Washington political machine.

So there. Now you know were I stand

shaviro wrote:

I wouldn't call it name calling as much as I'd call it gross exaggeration and oversimplification, which is exactly what pbmax is doing. With all due respect to everyone involved.

That last half sentence of your original post turned it from a brilliant response into an insult.
That is what I wanted to highlight with my response.

pbmax wrote:

Barack Hussein Obama didn't get a date wrong. He took a look at the Clinton's play book and then made up a story to make himself look better to his audience. In other words, he outright lied.

We don't need to go into Bush's lies... our soldiers are living and dying by them every single day.

McCain's lies are there too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

pbmax wrote:

Barack Hussein Obama

I like it how you lately stress the middle name. Pure important fact deliverance over cheap effects, in that I fully agree with you. My second name is often Jewish and mostly Polish by the way. I'd also prefer to get categorized in such a classy way.

BNA! wrote:

That last half sentence of your original post...

...happened to be a gross exaggeration and oversimplification of who I am, thank you very much.

You know, politics and stereotypes aside, I think you all would be surprised how close we really are in our views. Unfortunately, it would take forever to reach that point on a forum.

pbmax wrote:

BNA! wrote:

That last half sentence of your original post...

...happened to be a gross exaggeration and oversimplification of who I am, thank you very much.

Pleasure. I do not have to agree with your viewpoints to disagree with something targeted against you.

Well it seems pbmax was able to see past the "insult" and understand my point (even though he most likely does not agree), so it's all good

Forme obama is the lesser of evils, their still all dark overlords, hes jsut the whitest of them....wut LOL

no really sorry the voices I couldn't help it

Obama is a smart man and a good speaker perhaps not the best choice to lead us but hes better and has a higher IQ than the actor(Reagen) and the shrub(Bush) have.... deffintly better than Mc"sold my back bone to the reaper leaders,my balls to my lobbyist girl friend"kain..........

But anyway US politics ensure nothing gets done and the 2 main parties have complete rule over the populace and a impotent government to ensure they and theirs stay in power.

When people make it a point to spell out Obama's middle name like that it's done for no other reason than to try and take a name that's obviously very notorious and attach that stigma to him.
It's cute and in my eyes totally invalidates the persons views. It's that petty, irresponsible bullshit that makes a large part of the election process the joke that it is.

I've been doing some reading about Obama's recent shift and I have to say I'm very disappointed. It seems that he's no different than the "Washington" he talks about opposing in his speeches.

And he has a lot of people defending his actions by calling it a strategic compromise that will steal votes from McCain. And if that's true, it disgusts me even more. If Obama has to pander to those who would otherwise vote for McCain, all that does is prove he can't win the election on his own merit. And if that's the case then this country's fate is sealed and we deserve whatever we get for better or worse.

I think I'm going to vote third party for the first time in my life. I know people call it a wasted vote but if you think about it, the naysayers are hypocrites because they always restrict their choice to the two major parties and choose the lesser of two evils. They aren't looking for an exceptional president, just someone they can tolerate.

Maybe the system is flawed and third parties don't get enough coverage to yield a win but you can't pin the blame on a single entity. We bear the brunt of the blame because we are too concerned about the way others will vote to give third parties a fighting chance.

We watch third party candidates pull small percentages and allow that to dissuade us from even considering them in future elections. Not only does this lower the bar but it forces the country to stagnate for another 4 years. For what? Can we have another exceptional president please? Just one in my lifetime. Then you can all go back to pretending this is a horse race and betting on the sure thing.

We have more choices than Republican and Democrat and I encourage everyone to look into them. Don't settle for less because everyone else does. If enough people break free from this tired cycle of voting for the most tolerable of the popular, the results could be pleasantly surprising.

And to make matters even more palatable, the mainstream parties will have to work exceptionally hard the next election cycle to earn their base back. And this is especially true for those of you who feel your party has "lost it's way".

rich_is_bored wrote:

I think I'm going to vote third party for the first time in my life. I know people call it a wasted vote but if you think about it, the naysayers are hypocrites because they always restrict their choice to the two major parties and choose the lesser of two evils. They aren't looking for an exceptional president, just someone they can tolerate.

Thank you, a lot of people I've talked to don't even know there is other forms of democracy besides the democratic and republican parties, I'm of the opinion we give something new a try, they've been screwing it up long enough.

I've heard a lot of people saying Obama is an empty suit, I agree... and that's what makes me not like him(or any of the other candidates). They are all just shifting to what they think people want to hear just saying whatever it takes to get in there, they have such fluid stances lord knows what they'll really do if they get in there. That's got me real scared, it's typical politician behavior, but think of the power they'll posses with the patriot and homeland security acts still in place if they do get the presidency.

rich_is_bored wrote:

I've been doing some reading about Obama's recent shift and I have to say I'm very disappointed. It seems that he's no different than the "Washington" he talks about opposing in his speeches.

And he has a lot of people defending his actions by calling it a strategic compromise that will steal votes from McCain. And if that's true, it disgusts me even more. If Obama has to pander to those who would otherwise vote for McCain, all that does is prove he can't win the election on his own merit. And if that's the case then this country's fate is sealed and we deserve whatever we get for better or worse.

I think I'm going to vote third party for the first time in my life. I know people call it a wasted vote but if you think about it, the naysayers are hypocrites because they always restrict their choice to the two major parties and choose the lesser of two evils. They aren't looking for an exceptional president, just someone they can tolerate.

Maybe the system is flawed and third parties don't get enough coverage to yield a win but you can't pin the blame on a single entity. We bear the brunt of the blame because we are too concerned about the way others will vote to give third parties a fighting chance.

We watch third party candidates pull small percentages and allow that to dissuade us from even considering them in future elections. Not only does this lower the bar but it forces the country to stagnate for another 4 years. For what? Can we have another exceptional president please? Just one in my lifetime. Then you can all go back to pretending this is a horse race and betting on the sure thing.

We have more choices than Republican and Democrat and I encourage everyone to look into them. Don't settle for less because everyone else does. If enough people break free from this tired cycle of voting for the most tolerable of the popular, the results could be pleasantly surprising.

And to make matters even more palatable, the mainstream parties will have to work exceptionally hard the next election cycle to earn their base back. And this is especially true for those of you who feel your party has "lost it's way".

Meh I always saw Obama as a dim "shill"(Hilterly was scary and why she had to loan herself 10M to to lose....) looking to max dim votes(his speeches while a good read are nothing more than PR speak the same as everyone else's it just means he has a higher level of speaking skill), there is a higher possibility of him trying to right the wrongs in government but you see the 2 parties have a lock on it all there is no ands if or buts the only way to force anything is though executive powers and no one short of Ron paul would have the balls to try and trim the 800LB gorillas in the room, sure about all he could do is alil de reg here and open the free market up alil there, maybe protect the nation a bit more but in the end even the president dose not have the enough power to deflate the 2 party system.

A 3rd party for higher office is a impossibility until there are riots in the streets or the 2 party system is "ended".

Obama is not a empty suit this much I know but hes not the right person for higher office but neither is 80% of the fools in office now.

As for what he will do in office 1-2 things that he personally clings to what these are wont be to far from hat dims wish to happen upon the populace and they are far more scarier than anything I know the dims are a mix of hot blooded PC zero thought nazis,corporate ass kissers and status quo lovers its not much better than the corporate worshiping zionists who prefer their version of the bible and wish it upon the world...as long as it dose not interfere with corporate interests..., both are bad and the only way the US gov works is swap rapists every few years and let them use a different lube......

there will be no change until they and those with power are limited in breath and scope.

Who was the one who said that said a good government is one that's taken out back and killed occasionally? I believe it was one of the US founding father types. I can't remember who or anything close enough to google the quote.

If anyone knows what I'm talking about please remind me of the details.

stabinbac wrote:

Who was the one who said that said a good government is one that's taken out back and killed occasionally? I believe it was one of the US founding father types. I can't remember who or anything close enough to google the quote.

If anyone knows what I'm talking about please remind me of the details.

I think a gutting of all Washington officials every 2 years and ensure they may not serve for 4 years between 2 year terms will help keep ideas flowing, also a complete halt to "consulting" jobs from not only military (love the whole dragon skin fiasco) but civil leadership as well.

Would also love to to ensure that anyone with a few million in the bank dose not get paid they get staff,health care,transportation and security nothign else they don't need it.

rich_is_bored wrote:

I think I'm going to vote third party for the first time in my life. I know people call it a wasted vote but if you think about it, the naysayers are hypocrites because they always restrict their choice to the two major parties and choose the lesser of two evils. They aren't looking for an exceptional president, just someone they can tolerate.

I don't think of this as a wasted vote at all. After all, I voted Nader when Bush II was attempting his first shot at the presidency. Part of me really regrets it though... sure, I know I had every right to vote outside of the "lesser of two evils" and no one but Al Gore was responsible for the shittiness of his campaign... I mean, seriously, to lose to Bush must have taken some energy... but anyway, I still believe that had Gore managed to find his way into office, we would have handled 9/11 much differently and we certainly wouldn't be in Iraq because people like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wouldn't have made it into the highest echelons of power.

Even if McCain is elected, I'll be somewhat relieved because I'm fairly certain he won't surround himself with such stupid, clueless, backasswords fucktards as did Bush Jr. Or at least, that's my hope.

That said, though, there are some huge differences between Obama and McCain when it comes down to the possibilities of the two candidates listening to the populace. We all know how hard Bush worked to ignore U.S. and World opinion in the run up to Iraq. We all know how much time he spent ignoring every single military adviser and well-educated veteran of Foreign Affairs until he found people that would say what he wanted to hear. In my view, that is what needs to change more than anything else about our government.

I do think Obama has an open enough mind that if the people protest (or hopefully, if needed) revolt, he may listen. I'm not so sure McCain would. Instead, I think McCain would react much like Bush: Jail people who raise their fists, intimidate them, infiltrate them and wiretap them. Again, McCain might not be as bad, but he seems much less open-minded than Obama, and when things don't go his way he gets angry and reactionary.

efx wrote:

When people make it a point to spell out Obama's middle name like that it's done for no other reason than to try and take a name that's obviously very notorious and attach that stigma to him... ...It's that petty, irresponsible bullshit that makes a large part of the election process the joke that it is.

I agree its petty bullshit that Obama makes it a point that his middle name never appear in written form or spoken out loud.

rich_is_bored wrote:

I've been doing some reading about Obama's recent shift and I have to say I'm very disappointed. It seems that he's no different than the "Washington" he talks about opposing in his speeches.

Thanks for taking an honest look at this guy, Rich.

I'm all for a third party or a fourth party for that matter. I'm certainly no leftist, and the Republican party is a joke. We need a political revolution & upheaval in Washington.

pbmax wrote:

I agree its petty bullshit that Obama makes it a point that his middle name never appear in written form or spoken out loud.

Agreed, the risk is simply too high US citizens may mistake it as some sort of deliberately chosen political statement. Just like the name Adolf vanished in Germany after WW2. Those who still carried it really tried a lifelong to explain they didn't force their parents on gunpoint from mothers belly to get the name.

pbmax wrote:

I'm all for a third party or a fourth party for that matter. I'm certainly no leftist, and the Republican party is a joke. We need a political revolution & upheaval in Washington.

I fully agree with you on that. But trust me, you don't want to have more than four major political parties in parliament.
Guess why - there are no more than four really substantial tasks. Economy, Social Welldoings, Environment and Conservative Values. Double one of these positions and you'll end up with a dead end race track.

I never understood why the US has only a two party system, but when looking at all the low-niveau dirt slinging I can imagine only very few smart people want to get into that (unless a senator seat sort of accelerates their business).

pbmax wrote:

efx wrote:

When people make it a point to spell out Obama's middle name like that it's done for no other reason than to try and take a name that's obviously very notorious and attach that stigma to him... ...It's that petty, irresponsible bullshit that makes a large part of the election process the joke that it is.

I agree its petty bullshit that Obama makes it a point that his middle name never appear in written form or spoken out loud.

rich_is_bored wrote:

I've been doing some reading about Obama's recent shift and I have to say I'm very disappointed. It seems that he's no different than the "Washington" he talks about opposing in his speeches.

Thanks for taking an honest look at this guy, Rich.

I'm all for a third party or a fourth party for that matter. I'm certainly no leftist, and the Republican party is a joke. We need a political revolution & upheaval in Washington.

Considering hat the reapers are doing there needs to be a change of parties on high end of government just to releave the pressure from going to far one way, thats the only thing about the US gov that works the party changing positions screwing the public having one screw you to long can lead to bad bad bad things, the short term mentalities of the status quo need to be broken and changed, sadly nothing will break the long term status quo.

BTW a 3rd party as predint ain't goign to happen they will never have the numbers, it's a wasted vote both piratically and statistically.

If both candidate were benine I'd waste a vote but Mcain is just more reaper logic we do not need.

Republicans= Robber barons that reap from the populace = reapers
Democrats= PC zero thought rich kids that lived sheltered lives who know nothing of the real world= Dims

Check the alt parties they are nothing but exstentions of the 2 main with a slight diffracne in personalty but the same masters with a hand up their arse.

There is only 2 ways to break the status quo revolution which well breed sheeple are incapable of or government breakdown.

goliathvt wrote:

McCain might not be as bad, but he seems much less open-minded than Obama, and when things don't go his way he gets angry and reactionary.

Just like a baby.

That really scares me, the last thing I would want is an impulsive leader who just reacts without weighing the consequenses, to me that sort of behavior seems like it has "war-monger" written all over it. Personally I don't like the idea of a thermonuclear "oopsy" just because someone bull-headed idiot failed to do the sensible thing and know when to back down.

I've fallen out of this conversation because I'm too busy

. I'll just reply what was directed at me.

goliathvt wrote:

Dinky wrote:

But they don't even need to develop it, they can just buy it from a laundry list of evil countries, North Korea, China, Pakistan - OR, better yet, American democrats: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 4938.shtml

Wow, that source of yours is one of the worst researched pieces of garbage and speculation I've read in a while. For all their mistakes George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton and, hell, even Regan at the end of his term, did a few things to curb the spread of nuclear arms. However, it was our "victory" over Russia in the Cold War and the hardline conservatives who voted against Clinton's measure to ensure that Russia's nukes wouldn't get into "the wrong hands" during the country's economic collapse. Furthermore, the policies of the Bush Jr. administration have only worsened things: Countries like N. Korea have learned that we'll deal with them diplomatically if they have nukes. The "possibility" of nukes is what is keeping us out of Iran. Bush Jr. has put the possibility of "loose nukes" a lot higher on the list than any other presidency.

If you want more sources, find'em. That's not the only person/party/organization that has cited Bill Clinton for his sale of Nuclear technology to foreign nations. Shit, I even remember Mad TV having some kind of comedy skit in which a person imitating Bill Clinton was joking about selling off nukes to China. I was very surprised they were making fun of Clinton, but it happens every once in a blue moon (though it's usually only about his adultery scandals).

Clinton got credit and still gets credit for a lot of crap that was started before he got to office (which is common with Government, that is, taking forever to do something). But Clinton sold nuke tech to China, and he payed North Korea to stop researching Nuclear technology; but he didn't hold the Koreans to it, instead they just "Took their (N. Korean's) world for it". This resulted in the North Koreans continuing research and development in nuclear technology, using the billions of dollars Clinton gave to them to stop; and the Koreans were successful, they tested their nuke, and it worked. And when they were asked about it, the North Koreans claimed it was a failed nuclear missile explosion.

What's keeping us out of Iran is the Democrat ruled Congress not funding the war. George Bush may be able to order our military forces to go fight somewhere, help foreign nations in natural disasters, or whatever, but Congress doesn't have to fund his efforts - and that's what happening with the war right now. The news media has covered soldier interviews/documentaries in which they displayed the lack of armored Humvees and etc., and using that as proof that George Bush doesn't care. The fact is, Democrats don't want to fund the war, for that matter, they don't want to fund anything Bush does. It's just the way liberals are, they're cut throat evil back stabbers.

Just take McCain's campaign for example. For years, McCain went along as a Republican senator who was obviously incredibly liberal - and he had the media at his side because he's a liberal. Then when he runs for President and becomes the Republican nominee, the media turns on him. The NY Times posts an article bashing McCain and his campaign, then McCain and his family were outraged at the NY Times. “I am very disappointed in the New York Times..." <--- Straight out of the jackasses mouth. The fact is, he's a Republican, liberal or not, he's a Republican; what he didn't realize is that, to the liberal Democrats out there, that is all he is. A Republican.

Also, I must come to the defense of PBMax. I think what he means to show is that Obama is not the "perfect amazing" almost "super-human being" that the liberal mainstream media has been trying to portray him as ever since he started running. He's not perfect, he's far from perfect, he doesn't know what he's talking about and someone is behind the curtain telling Obama what to say. It's really amazing, and I'm glad that I don't watch TV News Media anymore, because I had my local news station on a few days ago just as background noise, and I caught a glimpse of some story about Obama and McCain. It was about the "technology" wisdom of these two possible Presidents. It was very blatant that they were bashing McCain by portraying Obama as some idiot who spends all day on a fucking Blackberry "txting" to his gangsta friends, while McCain doesn't even so much as have his Blackberry on his person unless someone hands it to him. They were trying their hardest to make Obama appeal to the idiots who believe that Blackberries are "like the coolest thing ever, OKAAAAY!!". (In other words, young voters.) It's amazing, these people are their campaign runners (Media).

goliathvt wrote:

Quote:

And Obama constantly talks about disarming this country... he talks about slowing all American defense.

We spend more on arms and military expenses than any other country on the planet. The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China

I could care less about the fudged numbers of the supposed China military budget charts, and even if these numbers could be considered correct, it's bullshit. China is a country of oppression who do nothing force shit upon their people and steal from them. I mean come on, we look at country's like Russia, where, for example, a Chess Champion (I forget his name) goes over there, says bad things about the Russian Government and the main dictator behind it, and what happens to this Chess player? He disappears, and is later revealed to have been arrested in Russia and is still locked away in prison until someone decides to kill him or that they don't care about him anymore. (I can't remember the details of this story, but it's pretty famous so I wouldn't doubt if someone here knows about it.) Obviously, we can put this kind of stuff past Russia, how could put it past China? China is a country dictated and ruled by evil people. And about your "source"... Ah well... Never mind about that.

But, that aside, I will gladly acknowledge and agree that the American government is over budget on a lot of things... Well, actually, on EVERYTHING. I hate government. The less government that exists, the better. This country was founded on the basis that it is a Republic, that the power belongs to the people. And every day, it gets more and more obvious that that foundation was lost somewhere in history.

I think there were a few other posts directed towards me and I could definitely say more, but it doesn't matter. I don't think any single person here has had their opinion changed based on any forum discussion here. Plus I've wasted too much time typing his, I've got crap to do that I wish I didn't have to do. (School)

Dinky wrote:

I've fallen out of this conversation because I'm too busy

. I'll just reply what was directed at me.

goliathvt wrote:

Dinky wrote:

But they don't even need to develop it, they can just buy it from a laundry list of evil countries, North Korea, China, Pakistan - OR, better yet, American democrats: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 4938.shtml

Wow, that source of yours is one of the worst researched pieces of garbage and speculation I've read in a while. For all their mistakes George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton and, hell, even Regan at the end of his term, did a few things to curb the spread of nuclear arms. However, it was our "victory" over Russia in the Cold War and the hardline conservatives who voted against Clinton's measure to ensure that Russia's nukes wouldn't get into "the wrong hands" during the country's economic collapse. Furthermore, the policies of the Bush Jr. administration have only worsened things: Countries like N. Korea have learned that we'll deal with them diplomatically if they have nukes. The "possibility" of nukes is what is keeping us out of Iran. Bush Jr. has put the possibility of "loose nukes" a lot higher on the list than any other presidency.

If you want more sources, find'em. That's not the only person/party/organization that has cited Bill Clinton for his sale of Nuclear technology to foreign nations. Shit, I even remember Mad TV having some kind of comedy skit in which a person imitating Bill Clinton was joking about selling off nukes to China. I was very surprised they were making fun of Clinton, but it happens every once in a blue moon (though it's usually only about his adultery scandals).

Clinton got credit and still gets credit for a lot of crap that was started before he got to office (which is common with Government, that is, taking forever to do something). But Clinton sold nuke tech to China, and he payed North Korea to stop researching Nuclear technology; but he didn't hold the Koreans to it, instead they just "Took their (N. Korean's) world for it". This resulted in the North Koreans continuing research and development in nuclear technology, using the billions of dollars Clinton gave to them to stop; and the Koreans were successful, they tested their nuke, and it worked. And when they were asked about it, the North Koreans claimed it was a failed nuclear missile explosion.

What's keeping us out of Iran is the Democrat ruled Congress not funding the war. George Bush may be able to order our military forces to go fight somewhere, help foreign nations in natural disasters, or whatever, but Congress doesn't have to fund his efforts - and that's what happening with the war right now. The news media has covered soldier interviews/documentaries in which they displayed the lack of armored Humvees and etc., and using that as proof that George Bush doesn't care. The fact is, Democrats don't want to fund the war, for that matter, they don't want to fund anything Bush does. It's just the way liberals are, they're cut throat evil back stabbers.

Just take McCain's campaign for example. For years, McCain went along as a Republican senator who was obviously incredibly liberal - and he had the media at his side because he's a liberal. Then when he runs for President and becomes the Republican nominee, the media turns on him. The NY Times posts an article bashing McCain and his campaign, then McCain and his family were outraged at the NY Times. “I am very disappointed in the New York Times..." <--- Straight out of the jackasses mouth. The fact is, he's a Republican, liberal or not, he's a Republican; what he didn't realize is that, to the liberal Democrats out there, that is all he is. A Republican.

Also, I must come to the defense of PBMax. I think what he means to show is that Obama is not the "perfect amazing" almost "super-human being" that the liberal mainstream media has been trying to portray him as ever since he started running. He's not perfect, he's far from perfect, he doesn't know what he's talking about and someone is behind the curtain telling Obama what to say. It's really amazing, and I'm glad that I don't watch TV News Media anymore, because I had my local news station on a few days ago just as background noise, and I caught a glimpse of some story about Obama and McCain. It was about the "technology" wisdom of these two possible Presidents. It was very blatant that they were bashing McCain by portraying Obama as some idiot who spends all day on a fucking Blackberry "txting" to his gangsta friends, while McCain doesn't even so much as have his Blackberry on his person unless someone hands it to him. They were trying their hardest to make Obama appeal to the idiots who believe that Blackberries are "like the coolest thing ever, OKAAAAY!!". (In other words, young voters.) It's amazing, these people are their campaign runners (Media).

goliathvt wrote:

Quote:

And Obama constantly talks about disarming this country... he talks about slowing all American defense.

We spend more on arms and military expenses than any other country on the planet. The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China

I could care less about the fudged numbers of the supposed China military budget charts, and even if these numbers could be considered correct, it's bullshit. China is a country of oppression who do nothing force shit upon their people and steal from them. I mean come on, we look at country's like Russia, where, for example, a Chess Champion (I forget his name) goes over there, says bad things about the Russian Government and the main dictator behind it, and what happens to this Chess player? He disappears, and is later revealed to have been arrested in Russia and is still locked away in prison until someone decides to kill him or that they don't care about him anymore. (I can't remember the details of this story, but it's pretty famous so I wouldn't doubt if someone here knows about it.) Obviously, we can put this kind of stuff past Russia, how could put it past China? China is a country dictated and ruled by evil people. And about your "source"... Ah well... Never mind about that.

But, that aside, I will gladly acknowledge and agree that the American government is over budget on a lot of things... Well, actually, on EVERYTHING. I hate government. The less government that exists, the better. This country was founded on the basis that it is a Republic, that the power belongs to the people. And every day, it gets more and more obvious that that foundation was lost somewhere in history.

I think there were a few other posts directed towards me and I could definitely say more, but it doesn't matter. I don't think any single person here has had their opinion changed based on any forum discussion here. Plus I've wasted too much time typing his, I've got crap to do that I wish I didn't have to do. (School)

Clinton got alot of heat for stuff "government" decided to do at the time, remember people government is a bureaucracy in itself like a alt dementional zone on a planet ruling it with lil question or unrest, sure Clinton was not perfect but there was enough decent agisnt him in office to moderate any movement to the left.

Bush is completely different (besides the whole some men gain presidency through charm, charisma, some gain ti as a graduation gift from dad bit) Bush is not a bright person altho like me he could just suck at words but its just hard to see the Gdamn peon as presidential material but even if you toss out IQ and the issues with his service we have "Bush.co" IE Cheany and the reaper lock on government pushing it further and further to the right with both downloaders, modchip users,gays and alt society as the leapering hippies of the day and because of it we get neo dims in office who are so inept they need an onterage to wipe their ass and why is that so because the reapers tried to take to much I can only hope whatever damage they do is moderated somehow because the party and its mentalities lead not the indavendauls, without steps to separate business from government like religion was done so long ago the government will grow inept,corrupt and collapse upon itself.

We are moving further and further away from a republic of the people to a aristocratic lite merchants/mafia society based on profit, we have rights and laws in place to protect the people but for the profit of the world and its top heavy societies those can be abolished.

HEIL! long live profit and the monopolization of it!

It sounds stupid but "money" needs to be removed from government, paying for anything for/to an elected official is crime unless its a state of emergency, elected officials can not work for10 years in any industry really tied to the government telecoms,banking,weapons production,ect,ect,ect they can advise but not for items or profit even restrict what they can do in media but singing,acting,writing,no corporate contracts or jobs period at all EVER its harsh but humans strive on harshness plus this keeps government from being corrupted by vested interests, also make running for high office into a charity event where the people that are running share in the funds drumed up and they use this equal amount of funds to do leg work on battle grounds no more loaning yourself 10M no more corporate sponsors no more rich man war chests, each state will have localized events ran by local government with asstance from the feds, the localization efforts line up dates for politicians to bicker on TV and radio events anything outside these standerized events will come from only 1 monetary source and thats split pot. TV ads that are not made by the candidates staff and approved candidates are inflict forms of advertisment(no more swift boat ads if it is not approved candidates and staff it can not be seen in public, now infomercials are exspemt if they lead in and follow out with a disclaimer for facts,reason and logic).

Religion is bad in government because of the power of the church whos had its way with gov and law for too long the gov needs to work for the people not for the church, besides the power issues with the "church" and the divisiveness religion breeds it needs to be moderated because yes dear children people is stupid to battle religoin and divisiveness we made a new religion PCnes and itszero thought police.... I hate PCness its oxymoronic god is god a ambiguous being "above" us, if public management wants to out out a nativity scene with public money be ready to put out one for any active religious group in the area, key word here public, if they assist in putting one up on private land with private money then the msot they can do is offer the service at the same price.

Money has its own set of degrading and corrupting influences o be strictly focused on profit is to lose sight of the world.

uuhhggg...sorry for mixing bits and trains of thoughts I went and derailed myself...again......

Dinky wrote:

...and I'm glad that I don't watch TV News Media anymore, because I had my local news station on a few days ago just as background noise, and I caught a glimpse of some story about Obama and McCain. It was about the "technology" wisdom of these two possible Presidents. It was very blatant that they were bashing McCain by portraying Obama as some idiot who spends all day on a fucking Blackberry "txting" to his gangsta friends, while McCain doesn't even so much as have his Blackberry on his person unless someone hands it to him. They were trying their hardest to make Obama appeal to the idiots who believe that Blackberries are "like the coolest thing ever, OKAAAAY!!". (In other words, young voters.) It's amazing, these people are their campaign runners (Media).

LOL!

Here's another one for you...

Poll: Obama beats McCain as barbecue guest
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5il7M ... QD91LN8U01

What the f*ck? This is the Associated Press, not some high school newspaper. If I were a journalist, I would be embarrassed to have anything to do with such a news article. The main stream media is so ridiculous I can't even put it into words.

That's it. I have changed my vote to Obama now because he'd make a better barbecue guest.

pbmax wrote:

Dinky wrote:

...and I'm glad that I don't watch TV News Media anymore, because I had my local news station on a few days ago just as background noise, and I caught a glimpse of some story about Obama and McCain. It was about the "technology" wisdom of these two possible Presidents. It was very blatant that they were bashing McCain by portraying Obama as some idiot who spends all day on a fucking Blackberry "txting" to his gangsta friends, while McCain doesn't even so much as have his Blackberry on his person unless someone hands it to him. They were trying their hardest to make Obama appeal to the idiots who believe that Blackberries are "like the coolest thing ever, OKAAAAY!!". (In other words, young voters.) It's amazing, these people are their campaign runners (Media).

LOL!

Here's another one for you...

Poll: Obama beats McCain as barbecue guest
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5il7M ... QD91LN8U01

What the f*ck? This is the Associated Press, not some high school newspaper. If I were a journalist, I would be embarrassed to have anything to do with such a news article. The main stream media is so ridiculous I can't even put it into words.

That's it. I have changed my vote to Obama now because he'd make a better barbecue guest.

YA the AP has gone nutters(even has started to CP troll and DMCA take down THE NEWS....oy vay) with the loss of hard news shows and the entertainment direction news has went in theres lil reason to watch the news for news.

Wow. I had forgotten how insane and misinformed people could be. Just wow.

Dinky wrote:

What's keeping us out of Iran is the Democrat ruled Congress not funding the war. ...Soldier interviews/documentaries in which they displayed the lack of armored Humvees and etc., and using that as proof that George Bush doesn't care. The fact is, Democrats don't want to fund the war, for that matter, they don't want to fund anything Bush does. It's just the way liberals are, they're cut throat evil back stabbers.

Is this a joke? Maybe you haven't bothered to check, but we've pumped over $500 BILLION into this war. And maybe you haven't bothered to check, but one of the reasons why it's so unbelievably expensive is because we're relying on mercenaries and corporations to do a lot of the work that should be done by our armed forces. Maybe you haven't noticed that they have swindled and over-charged the government right and left.

Quote:

With almost no congressional oversight and even less public awareness, the Bush administration has more than doubled the size of the U.S. occupation through the use of private war companies.

There are now almost 200,000 private “contractors” deployed in Iraq by Washington.

Well, somebody's gotta pay those bills... and guess what... it's you and me, our children and our grandchildren who will be footing that bill.

And maybe you haven't bothered to ask yourself: Who's getting properly paid and ensuring those encountering battle have the supplies they need? See, Congress has done its job and held up its end of the bargain. It's Bush that has decided to give that funding away to the wrong people.

Our servicemen and -women see only a small fraction of the kind of pay a merc does... they also only see a fraction of the technology and armor upgrades. $300 million per day is spent on Iraq, but the bulk of it goes to overpriced, less-trained and less reliable private security companies rather than the much-needed up-armored humvees and flac jackets for our troops.

I'm sorry, but it's not the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress that are at fault here. It's Bush's terrible decisions, ignorance and willingness to pander to corporate mercs when he couldn't muster enough support (as in, warm bodies) for his war. THAT is the problem. Not the Congressional funding, which has been far and above what it ever should have been.

My mind is just blown at the backwardsness and cluelessness on display here. Dinky, do you really believe what you wrote? If so, please explain it further. I just cannot see how it's possible to miss putting 2 and 2 together here.

goliathvt wrote:

I'm sorry, but it's not the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress that are at fault here...

Ah, wait a second. The democrats have control of both the House & Senate with uber liberal Nancy Pelosi as speaker. So why have they not ended the war? Hmmm?

"Bringing the war to an end is my highest priority as Speaker." - Nancy Pelosi November 17, 2006

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy ... 34393.html

Where's the outrage over this? Nancy hasn't done a damn thing to end the war. Nothing! The Democrats can stop the funding but they don't. Why are you not raging against your own party? Hmmm?

pbmax wrote:

goliathvt wrote:

I'm sorry, but it's not the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress that are at fault here...

Ah, wait a second. The democrats have control of both the House & Senate with uber liberal Nancy Pelosi as speaker. So why have they not ended the war? Hmmm?

"Bringing the war to an end is my highest priority as Speaker." - Nancy Pelosi November 17, 2006

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy ... 34393.html

Where's the outrage over this? Nancy hasn't done a damn thing to end the war. Nothing! The Democrats can stop the funding but they don't. Why are you not raging against your own party? Hmmm?

She also made a promise that she would do something about high fuel cost back when it was around $2.00/gl. Since then it's risen to over $4 and has become a sad joke around the inner-circles as the Pelosi Premium agenda.

pbmax/pendragon
SO lets blame the dims for the corruptions in Washington and the the "Heil! for the profits!" mentalities that drive it?

Sadly the 2 party system is broken and is a racket to perpetuate the illusion of choice while maintaining those with power with more power.

@pbmax: After all this time and all these discussions and you think I'm a democrat? Heh.

The dems are no more "my party" than they are yours.

I find the behavior of the Dems just as reprehensible as the Repubs, especially when it comes down to the issue of Iraq. And while you make a very good point about how speaker Polosi has been remiss in her duties and falling short of her promises, a lot of that is due to the kinds of jargon that we just saw Dinky spew: Even though the Dems and Repubs have been funding billions into Iraq over the years, there's still the mindset (even if baseless) that the war is being underfunded or somehow the Bush administration has met some sort of stalwart opposition to its funding. Even though the reality is far different, the perception is there. So calling for an unequivocal end to the presence of troops in Iraq or even a "draw-down" is met with venom and rancor from the hawks and skepticism and hesitation from the doves.

And then there's that whole polar debate about whether or not we stay or leave. Notice how carefully the media, both liberal and conservative, has kept the discussion to those two perspectives... and ONLY those two perspectives. Alternatives and gray area between the "Stay the Course" and the "Cut n' Run" debates are unwelcome and largely non-existent in mainstream press.

The collusion of these and other things, while seemingly hotly contested on the surface, merely allow the status quo to continue: Massive debt that the Bush admin has no plan to repay is accrued and passed on to future administrations, our troops stay in place or are supplemented by overpaid, inefficient mercs, and people like Dinky point fingers at all the wrong people and places.

If the Dems had any backbone (recall I said this about the Dems four years ago during the run-up to those elections), they would have taken the reigns and done just like you said, cut funding for a war they feel is unjust. But of course, only a handful actually feel that way and an even smaller handful of them feel that way and can ignore the absolute boon in their petrol, tech and defense industry stocks in order to make the change happen now rather than later. The wallets of the Dems are filling just as fast as their counterparts across the aisle thanks to Bush's little adventure so they are just as happy to let this thing drag on until their hand is forced.

pendragon wrote:

She also made a promise that she would do something about high fuel cost back when it was around $2.00/gl. Since then it's risen to over $4 and has become a sad joke around the inner-circles as the Pelosi Premium agenda.

Just get the US administration to sit down and negotiate with Iran. You'll surprised how fast Oil prices can drop since their gains which started with the Iraq war.

ZippyDSMlee wrote:

pbmax/pendragon
SO lets blame the dims for the corruptions in Washington and the the "Heil! for the profits!" mentalities that drive it?

I named Pelosi explicitely because she is the one that said it. No partisan politics here.
Even Cindy Sheehan is upset about Pelosi's broken promise on Iraq and she calls herself a Liberal. So it's not a partisan attack but a statement on the... let's call it 'incomplete truth' Pelosi used to get herself elected.

Quote:

Sadly the 2 party system is broken and is a racket to perpetuate the illusion of choice while maintaining those with power with more power.

I agree with that. The system doesn't work unless you have honest, reasonable people partake in it. When all ability to reason flies out the window because the only thing that matters is party affiliation then the people are not being served fairly and the system and society suffers greatly.

BNA! wrote:

...
Just get the US administration to sit down and negotiate with Iran. You'll surprised how fast Oil prices can drop since their gains which started with the Iraq war.

The problem runs much deeper here in the US then our relations with Iran. The housing market crash, which is reaching levels equated to the great depression, is having devastating effects that's reaching deep into the economy. The depreciated value of the dollar is weakening it's buying power which is driving up the cost of just about everything.
What's got me worried about both candidates is that they not only are not addressing this issue but are talking about mounting more demands on the taxpayer.
We got one side saying 'we can't drill our way out of this' while the other side says 'we can't tax our way out of it'. It's a friggin' mess here. This problem has been mounting since the 70's and all we've managed to do in over 30 years is become more dependent on imported oil, billions spent in research only to cycle back around to an old idea that moonshiners could've told you over 80 years ago...put some corn lickr in that tank, dang it! If our Gov. is suppose to be run by our best and brightest then we're in for a shitload of trouble.

pendragon wrote:

BNA! wrote:

...
Just get the US administration to sit down and negotiate with Iran. You'll surprised how fast Oil prices can drop since their gains which started with the Iraq war.

The problem runs much deeper here in the US then our relations with Iran. The housing market crash, which is reaching levels equated to the great depression, is having devastating effects that's reaching deep into the economy. The depreciated value of the dollar is weakening it's buying power which is driving up the cost of just about everything.
What's got me worried about both candidates is that they not only are not addressing this issue but are talking about mounting more demands on the taxpayer.
We got one side saying 'we can't drill our way out of this' while the other side says 'we can't tax our way out of it'. It's a friggin' mess here. This problem has been mounting since the 70's and all we've managed to do in over 30 years is become more dependent on imported oil, billions spent in research only to cycle back around to an old idea that moonshiners could've told you over 80 years ago...put some corn lickr in that tank, dang it! If our Gov. is suppose to be run by our best and brightest then we're in for a shitload of trouble.

Well, I have been adressing the Oil price. Part of it is attributed to the depreciated USD, part to investors trying to deleverage themselves with gains from Oil futures, part is increased world wide demand and a large additional part is the global tension regarding Iran as they will block the Oil routes in case of an attack. Not to mention the daily rebel pipeline attack in Africa.

In times of the great depression there was no globalized economy as we know it today. I do not assume things will turn that bad, but if so my nest egg will evaporate as much as the common Americans nest egg will go away for a long time.

The housing crash is bad, yet it has been foreseeable. If you run a country for too long on negative effective interest rates with widespread credit availability you'll end up in bubble trouble. This is especially true of people think they can chew something off their individual house price appreciations by taking multiple mortgages on it. A single family house which is owner occupied cannot get capitalized to eternity. All an owner can spend in addition is the amount of cash he can free by avoiding rental payments after getting out of debt. Anything else is an illusion, not only in the US but also in Ireland or Spain.

You cannot deleverage the financial system in a day or two. This will take more like half a decade.

A large contribution to the current economic mess was the US government trying to wage a war with no consequences on the US tax payer, a novum in history. They printed so much money that the Fed even got ordered not to measure the growth of total money volume any more, at least they got ordered not to release the data anymore. Now where do all these bills go? Selling t-bonds to souvereign wealth funds is good war funding if you want to make your people believe "look, there is a war and you don't have to lay down one penny, in fact we even cut the taxes if you're already rich".

The bills to pay always lay by the middle class. And that is what happens now. I do not think you'll either tax or drill yourself out of the current situation. It takes time and moderate leadership till the country is strong enough again to risk it all in the next round.

The problem the western world has to face right now is to become more independent of fossile energy (for more reasons than just the environment), deleveraging the financial system (raising capital, cutting dividends, cutting jobs, reinstitution of proper credit and rating checks) and avoiding any of these: stagflation, high inflation and deflation.

There are various ways to address these issues, but they all have to play together since this time it is a problem on many fronts. The US cannot lower interest rates any more or has the power to drop more financial stimulus from the sky. Half of their funds got burned in the first half of 2008 and their balance sheet is significantly weakened since they had to take badly performing debt obligations from the market to prevent further collapse. If the financial crisis would have stayed isolated I'd say we'd head for greener pastures same time next year. But the unprecedented increase in Oil cost has created another huge issue. Just imagine a GM bankruptcy - that wont do any good for the people, especially if they sit on an undercollateralized home loan and 18% credit card debt.

I always like how a politician takes on with a poster problem and declares it his mission to solve. One fights terrorism, another high gasoline prices and the next one saves the environment. But none of these honourable men and women can do a thing - the world is big and far too complex to declare prices lower or whatever. Especially since Oil prices are not a supply problem (unlike the 70ies) there is nothing you can really do about it. Maybe call your old friends at Wall Street and tell them to stop trading Oil futures, but that's about it and I doubt it will be overly effective since there are plenty of Wall Streets all around the world and everyone wants to make his cut now.

So the only thing left to do for the politicians would be to behave moderate and avoid anything that could add to increased tensions.

pbmax wrote:

That's it. I have changed my vote to Obama now because he'd make a better barbecue guest.

lol That's going to get him a lot of votes.

pbmax wrote:

goliathvt wrote:

I'm sorry, but it's not the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress that are at fault here...

Ah, wait a second. The democrats have control of both the House & Senate with uber liberal Nancy Pelosi as speaker. So why have they not ended the war? Hmmm?

"Bringing the war to an end is my highest priority as Speaker." - Nancy Pelosi November 17, 2006

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-nancy ... 34393.html

Where's the outrage over this? Nancy hasn't done a damn thing to end the war. Nothing! The Democrats can stop the funding but they don't. Why are you not raging against your own party? Hmmm?

The damage has been done now. If we were to just leave it would through the country in chaos and civil war.

pendragon wrote:

ZippyDSMlee wrote:

pbmax/pendragon
SO lets blame the dims for the corruptions in Washington and the the "Heil! for the profits!" mentalities that drive it?

I named Pelosi explicitely because she is the one that said it. No partisan politics here.
Even Cindy Sheehan is upset about Pelosi's broken promise on Iraq and she calls herself a Liberal. So it's not a partisan attack but a statement on the... let's call it 'incomplete truth' Pelosi used to get herself elected.

Quote:

Sadly the 2 party system is broken and is a racket to perpetuate the illusion of choice while maintaining those with power with more power.

I agree with that. The system doesn't work unless you have honest, reasonable people partake in it. When all ability to reason flies out the window because the only thing that matters is party affiliation then the people are not being served fairly and the system and society suffers greatly.

Politics=cluster fck,as long is one is lubed and prepared for the carnage all is well I guess LOL

The current system needs more sternness in keeping its officials out of the gutter lanes, giving money to elected officials should be considered treason, the current system is to attached to the money tit on top heavy organizations non of which care abotu the nation or its people....

This place seems to have some bright minds here, anyone posted,raving,ranting about the gas situation yet?

I'll be buying a motorcycle as soon as I can save up the money.

rich_is_bored wrote:

I'll be buying a motorcycle as soon as I can save up the money.

I am going with a motorized mountain bike..., fi I a going to spend 2G on a vehicle its goign to be at least 3 wheels and the japanase mini trucks are abotu 4G used, hell you can buy a touring motorbike for twice as much.
40MPG, the 500-6XXCC 4 cyclender engine makes it alil easier to fix than a normal car or truck the main down side highway is a no no and some city's refuse to let you make ATVs and alt vehicles street legal even if they have lights and mirrors...

http://www.allamericanminitrucks.com/in ... /index.htm
http://www.japaneseminitrucks.com/

You might have to dance with city regulations to get tags for it tho... rual areas are much more kind to them.