Presidential Prediction

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:47 am

Elect whomever you want. There's not a hair's breadth difference between the way these two will govern, except in minor detail. Both will shred and ignore the constitution, grow the government, hurt the economy, and reduce our precious freedoms.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:21 am

K.Snyder;981696 wrote: Even the majority doesn't always dictate who's going to be President and who's not.

We all know what happened in 2000 --...:yh_think...and 2004!!!...Yes that's right folks..*Drum rooooooollllllllllll* --It's RIGGED ELECTION TIME!!!!!!!******

*****Cheers******Claps!!!!!!!!**********

Sadly our electoral system is in a parlous state as well so I am unable to make any smug comments. You sort yours we'll sort ours. Actually i can't see them getting away with anything this time- in a free country it's a foolish political establishment that keeps ignoring the electorate. Mind you they tend to lve in theor own world don't they

posted by K Snyder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian View Post

I think Obama is more worldly popular, he drew big crowds in the UK, I think this should be thought about by the American voters.

In what way exactly?...

I can't speak for Ian but I reckon if McCain gets in most of your allies would decide that the US is on course to become a right wing militaristic nation determined to make war and economic policy in pursuit of it's own narrow interests regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. There are two ways you can secure your energy sources, peaceful or by warfare. At the moment you are using warfare, MCCain looks like more of the same. What you do in Iran or Georgia could spark off another world war. Any grandstanding by Bush or threat to use force is likely to be called for the bluff it is. Realistically if Russia tells you do F--k Off in Georgia there is nothing you can do about it except go to war. On the other hand russuia is showing no signs of wanting to extend then old hegemony, besides any attempt to re invade Czechoslovakia, Poland etc. etc. would lead to full scale war. Iran will not back down and if threatened and if you attack it you have a full scale war on your hands with most of the middle east backing Iran.

Your economy will go down the toilet and those who trade with you will really start looking to develop other markets out of self interest. Another ten years or so and the US will be bankrupt with massive social upheaval as the disenfranchised finally take to the streets en masse. You can't **** on the great unwashed, tell them it's their own fault for being inadequate and hope they stay convinced they have no right to object.

Sentiment against the war in iraq in the UK is actually very very strong, the only reason TB got back in last time was the alternative was even more smarmy and out first past the post system electoral system skews the result, labour have less than a third of the votes cast.

American voters, I suspect, are like british voters in that they take a long time to get angry at their politicians preferring to believe the best of them despite all he evidence of them being the worst.

But I don't think you should worry too much what foreigners think, you have enough to worry about at home as it is.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:33 am

gmc;981773 wrote:

American voters, I suspect, are like british voters in that they take a long time to get angry at their politicians preferring to believe the best of them despite all he evidence of them being the worst. Well it is hard to pi** off the content and free. The politicians of today can only be infatuated with the fact that it's not 1930.

gmc;981773 wrote:

But I don't think you should worry too much what foreigners think, you have enough to worry about at home as it is.

To be honest I think any voting system throughout the world comprises of votes holding the sentiment of individualistic grandeur.

What we need is a good old revolution comprised of collectivist anarchism...I couldn't think of a better ideal.

We've got that whole content and free thing to worry about though. Too bad being blown to smithereens is the alternative!!!...

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:51 am

My Apologies to Valerie if i have offended you. Here we are only privilaged to our National news reports & sky news. We do not get in the low down. I am in no doubt "President" McCain can get as dirty as the rest however i have no interest in his past with the exeption of his service in Vietnam. I also have no interest in Obama's past. I believe it is down to what these men (& women) can do for our future. God knows our own cabinets have been full of "Sleeze". England has always had a "special" relationship with America. Some-one of my age has been indoctrinated with that since a small child. When America has elections, England takes notice. When America elects their president, the british know that the person in The Whitehouse will have a certain influence on our own government. That's the way it has always been. We look to an America President for strength, some-one to lead the way. We will never see the likes of JFK or Margaret Thatcher again but we hope. Obama had his chance to show his strength when Russia went into Georgia. He wavered. We don't like that. That's the truth. One naional news article here asked this, "it's Obama's first day in office. Iran has just nuked Isreal. America threatens to nuke Iran. Russia threatens to nuke America, laughs at you & rolls more tanks into Eastern Europe. By the way, The Taliban has just taken control of Pakistan's nucleur arsenal. Over to you President Obama?? Your instructions please?? An unlikely scenario? We don't think so. Public opinion also influences government. If the British don't have faith in an American President, it will reflect on the British government, that in turn will effect The relationship between America & Britain. That's why Britain sits up & takes notice. We did not judge Clinton's sexual allegations any more than we will judge McCain. We are not interested here. We are interested in strength in The Whitehouse, some-one who will be able to deal with the scenario i have just quoted. That is the thoughts of the average British public. O.k. Maybe our news is reporting more favourably in McCains favour. The man in the street in Britain is discussing who will be in the Whitehouse. It is huge interest in every bar in the land. If we had the vote, i'm sure we'd have "Golden" Brown on the first plane to America in a fair swop for McCain. He's tough, he's got balls. We like that. Thatcher after all was a man without balls. We are sick to death of the "We are the one's we've been waiting for", "Change" speeches churned out by Obama. What about the economy, rising fuel prices, folks homes being re-possessed, old folks power being cut off & jobs axed. What are you doing about that Obama? Because we haven't heard it yet. We see Obama likening himself to the Michael Jackson Tinseltown lifestyle wanting to heal the world. Where will Obama be when the Russian tanks roll into Eastern Europe? Umming & arrhing as he did on Georgia.:wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:01 am

Reagan & Thatcher. The most awesome double act this world ever saw. Bring it on McCain.

If Obama wins, he will not influence our government, it'll be the other way round. If it is left to "Golden Brown" to deal with terrorism, God help us. Can some-one arrange for Obama to be interviewed by the political Rottwieler "Paxman"?? That would be history's comedy moment.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:34 am

oscar;981874 wrote: My Apologies to Valerie if i have offended you. Here we are only privilaged to our National news reports & sky news. We do not get in the low down. I am in no doubt "President" McCain can get as dirty as the rest however i have no interest in his past with the exeption of his service in Vietnam. I also have no interest in Obama's past. I believe it is down to what these men (& women) can do for our future. God knows our own cabinets have been full of "Sleeze". England has always had a "special" relationship with America. Some-one of my age has been indoctrinated with that since a small child. When America has elections, England takes notice. When America elects their president, the british know that the person in The Whitehouse will have a certain influence on our own government. That's the way it has always been. We look to an America President for strength, some-one to lead the way. We will never see the likes of JFK or Margaret Thatcher again but we hope. Obama had his chance to show his strength when Russia went into Georgia. He wavered. We don't like that. That's the truth. One naional news article here asked this, "it's Obama's first day in office. Iran has just nuked Isreal. America threatens to nuke Iran. Russia threatens to nuke America, laughs at you & rolls more tanks into Eastern Europe. By the way, The Taliban has just taken control of Pakistan's nucleur arsenal. Over to you President Obama?? Your instructions please?? An unlikely scenario? We don't think so. Public opinion also influences government. If the British don't have faith in an American President, it will reflect on the British government, that in turn will effect The relationship between America & Britain. That's why Britain sits up & takes notice. We did not judge Clinton's sexual allegations any more than we will judge McCain. We are not interested here. We are interested in strength in The Whitehouse, some-one who will be able to deal with the scenario i have just quoted. That is the thoughts of the average British public. O.k. Maybe our news is reporting more favourably in McCains favour. The man in the street in Britain is discussing who will be in the Whitehouse. It is huge interest in every bar in the land. If we had the vote, i'm sure we'd have "Golden" Brown on the first plane to America in a fair swop for McCain. He's tough, he's got balls. We like that. Thatcher after all was a man without balls. We are sick to death of the "We are the one's we've been waiting for", "Change" speeches churned out by Obama. What about the economy, rising fuel prices, folks homes being re-possessed, old folks power being cut off & jobs axed. What are you doing about that Obama? Because we haven't heard it yet. We see Obama likening himself to the Michael Jackson Tinseltown lifestyle wanting to heal the world. Where will Obama be when the Russian tanks roll into Eastern Europe? Umming & arrhing as he did on Georgia.:wah:

You have got to stop reading the daily mail. If, in the country that invented a free press, newspapers, radio, television, computers, the internet and the satellite that is the only source you claim to be able to find I would suggest you haven't looked very hard.

Reagan & Thatcher. The most awesome double act this world ever saw. Bring it on McCain. If Obama wins, he will not influence our government, it'll be the other way round. If it is left to "Golden Brown" to deal with terrorism, God help us. Can some-one arrange for Obama to be interviewed by the political Rottwieler "Paxman"?? That would be history's comedy moment.

Give new labour their due. they did finally get a peace process in Northern Ireland. Although a cynic might suggest the real factor was the cutting of funding from the USA as it finally dawned on america what terrorism actually was and maybe the IRA weren't gallant such freedom fighters after all. Even when they tried to kill dear old maggie they still kept on sending the money.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:09 am

gmc;981960 wrote: You have got to stop reading the daily mail. If, in the country that invented a free press, newspapers, radio, television, computers, the internet and the satellite that is the only source you claim to be able to find I would suggest you haven't looked very hard.

Give new labour their due. they did finally get a peace process in Northern Ireland. Although a cynic might suggest the real factor was the cutting of funding from the USA as it finally dawned on america what terrorism actually was and maybe the IRA weren't gallant such freedom fighters after all. Even when they tried to kill dear old maggie they still kept on sending the money. Your correct in that i have not looked very hard. I have very little time due to working weird shifts & i would dearly love to find more sources but not enough hours in the day. In the restricted time that i have, i buy several tabloids & scan each, it's the only way i can get most imfo in the time that i have. I may have my facts wrong here so i will be expected to be corrected, but wasn't JFK's Father, Joe one of the first investors into the IRA? Tell me, why do you think i should stop reading the daily mail? I read them all admitedly only in part due to lack of time & i find "The Sun" makes great lining for the cat **** box. Why the Mail?

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:26 pm

Thank you for the apology Oscar but you didn't offend me.

It's actually interesting to me reading views from elsewhere in the

world... even or maybe even especially views I disagree with.

:-6

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:35 pm

valerie;982082 wrote: Thank you for the apology Oscar but you didn't offend me.

It's actually interesting to me reading views from elsewhere in the

world... even or maybe even especially views I disagree with.

:-6 As i said Valerie, i did not mean to offend you. British politicins tend to still keep the stiff upper lip & would not disgrace themselves by speaking badly of the opposition in public. They are perfectly capable but it's behind closed doors. I found this quote for you. An insult to a lady by one of the world's most respected men-- Winstone Churchill, our great war time leader. Labour M.P. Bessie Braddock to Winstone Churchill----"This is a disgrace, you are quite drunk". Winstone replied "And you Madam are ugly. As for my condition, it will pass by the morning. You, however, will still be ugly.------ Such style do you not agree?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:46 pm

gmc;981960 wrote: You have got to stop reading the daily mail. If, in the country that invented a free press, newspapers, radio, television, computers, the internet and the satellite that is the only source you claim to be able to find I would suggest you haven't looked very hard.

Give new labour their due. they did finally get a peace process in Northern Ireland. Although a cynic might suggest the real factor was the cutting of funding from the USA as it finally dawned on america what terrorism actually was and maybe the IRA weren't gallant such freedom fighters after all. Even when they tried to kill dear old maggie they still kept on sending the money. Talking of Lady Thatcher, when the IRA tried to blow her up, it was my 1st husband who first reached her. We lived in Brighton & Lady Thatcher was staying with the cabinet at The Grand Hotel on the promenade. I will always remember the noise when the bomb went off. I swear our house shook two miles away. My ex was an industrial fireman trained in chemical fires etc so they were the first in. He got to Lady Thatcher & tended briefly to her. He said at the time that she appeared totally unfazed by it all. He helped Norman Tebbit out as well. His crew recieved an award & it got him free drinks in bars for years. So any anti Thatcherites out there--Blame my first husband.:p:p:p

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:23 am

oscar;982041 wrote: Your correct in that i have not looked very hard. I have very little time due to working weird shifts & i would dearly love to find more sources but not enough hours in the day. In the restricted time that i have, i buy several tabloids & scan each, it's the only way i can get most imfo in the time that i have. I may have my facts wrong here so i will be expected to be corrected, but wasn't JFK's Father, Joe one of the first investors into the IRA? Tell me, why do you think i should stop reading the daily mail? I read them all admitedly only in part due to lack of time & i find "The Sun" makes great lining for the cat **** box. Why the Mail?

I wouldn't say stop reading it just don't read that one alone. I read newspapers on line, including the daily mail sometimes, but I just pick out those bits I find interesting and cross reference the information. Do a google search for any of the papers and you will find online versions. You can even watch american news, al jazera read english language papers in the sub continent, the new york times usa today or anything else you feel like looking at. Save the pennies read on line. You'll find the socialist worker makes better cat tray liner, which is a comment on the quality of the paper used rather than the written content. You get it on line as well. read the ukip web pages or BNP as well if you want differing viewpoints just don't take it all with a pinch of salt and a good cup of coffee as you scan the world media.

Even the most ardent anti-thatcherite wouldn't want her blown up but you'll notice we didn't start claiming the catholics were trying to destroy our way of life (though I know a few orangemen that would argue the case) and start bombing Dublin.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:31 am

Hoss;982706 wrote: No offense Ian, but I really don't care what the world thinks about our Barack Obama, he's running for President of the United States, not president of the world. I, as one American won't be seeking any countries forgiveness for protecting my sovereignty. And we don't need your oil or any other countries oil, we can go it alone just fine. The sentiment here in CA has finally turned and the republicans are going to win seats in congress from CA because of the failed energy policies of the current democrat leadership.

Pelosi, and Feinstein and Boxer, are already changing their politically correct minds about drilling. This idea of no drilling for oil off the CA coast has people very angry and its now time to change politicians and the republicans know it.

Barack Obama is more worldly popular because the world sees what we see in him, a militarily weak individual, who will negotiate and compromise instead of fight when necessary. Americans don’t like a weak leader.

winston churchill

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.

I suppose he was a weak leader as well then.

Who is it you think is going to go to war with you? Your sovereignty is under threat from which country?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:11 am

gmc;982635 wrote: I wouldn't say stop reading it just don't read that one alone. I read newspapers on line, including the daily mail sometimes, but I just pick out those bits I find interesting and cross reference the information. Do a google search for any of the papers and you will find online versions. You can even watch american news, al jazera read english language papers in the sub continent, the new york times usa today or anything else you feel like looking at. Save the pennies read on line. You'll find the socialist worker makes better cat tray liner, which is a comment on the quality of the paper used rather than the written content. You get it on line as well. read the ukip web pages or BNP as well if you want differing viewpoints just don't take it all with a pinch of salt and a good cup of coffee as you scan the world media.

Even the most ardent anti-thatcherite wouldn't want her blown up but you'll notice we didn't start claiming the catholics were trying to destroy our way of life (though I know a few orangemen that would argue the case) and start bombing Dublin. Thank you for your advice gmc; it's good advice i will say but in my life it's getting the time to sit on the p.c etc to google. I can only snatch a little time here or there. My humble opinion is just that weather America likes it, they are viewed through out the world as a super power & it's important to all of us, what is going on in these elections. It's why i want to see some-one with experience, strength & balls to deal with the worlds threats. Terrorism will not go away over night, nor will Russia's threat to nuke Poland etc etc. I don't believe that Obama can heal the world by speeches alone. I think back to "The bay of pigs" scenario with the Kennedy administration & the guts JFK had to call Cuba's bluff. That's the kind of person i'd like to see in the Whitehouse.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:53 am

JAB;982920 wrote: Why? Last I checked, the world isn't registered to vote in our elections. I didn't think we needed your approval any more then any other country needs ours. Approval, maybe not. Who was the first in with you on the Gulf war & Iraq war? Which world leader was to first to fly out to offer support against terrorism when you suffered 9/11 ?--- Tony Blair---Britain. Every country needs it's allies. If you think you don't need anyones approval, it could be the difference in a breakdown of relationship between Britain & America. If we don't approve of your president or your choice, we aint going into war with you. The next one, you could find yourself alone---- No man is an island.:p:p:p Obama will create wars because he wavers & if i had the vote here in England, i for one would not back him. McCain will avert war because he's got the balls to get stuck in there before they escalate. Don't need anyones approval? Your having a laugh. For one you need Polands approval if they are willing to house your shield missiles to help defend your country. Poland is part of Europe, that includes the rest of us.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:10 am

JAB;982969 wrote: So a popular, likeable US President is preferable over one that has more substance? No. We like strength, nerve, courage & some balls. Obama doesn't have it.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:43 pm

I would prefer that we all just learn to get along.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:22 pm

Bush has promised aid to Texas after Hurricane Ike and of course Texas is his home state. Does anyone think he will deliver it and take in mind Katrina and that failure.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:00 am

Hoss;983443 wrote: I keep hearing about the Katrina failure being laid on his doorstep, I have to disagree, the disaster that struck was one huge storm to begin with and why doesnâ€™t the state of Louisiana take some of the blame since itâ€™s their responsibility to keep the levees that protect them in good working order?
The federal gov't took over maintenance of the levees (Army Corps of Engineers), so they were Bush's responsibility. But that only cost property. Responsibility for the botched evacuation lies solely with the mayor and governor. That cost lives.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:45 am

Hoss;983399 wrote: Any group or country that supports a group that flyâ€™s planes into our buildings. I stand in amazement that people think that since we are a powerful nation and could destroy most of the known world in one launch that we will sit idly by when someone gives us a black eye, simply because we 'could' destroy them, but wont, since, after all, we can just rebuild the thing.

What did you all expect us to do, just sit over here and do nothing? Thatâ€™s not the American way. Excuse me, the weak kneed way may be the American-Clinton way, but not the American-Bush way. I hope its not a weak kneed American-Obama way in the future.

Those who attack us will be brought to justice, and that is an attack on our sovereignty, and I say it is an attack on the sovereignty of any other free nation too.

As to who will fight with us, it doesnâ€™t matter, we can go it alone if need be.

You were attacked by terrorists so why didn't you go after the terrorists instead of using it as an excuse to invade a country that had no connection to your attackers? Going in to afghanistan made some sense, so would attacking saudi arabia since the terrorists were from there and much of the finding came from there. Indeed the one nation that has gained most out of the last eight years is saudi arabia, their power in the moddle east has grown exponentially as one buy ne nations that could have stood against them have been emasculated. They are the moral leaders of the muslims now and wahabism is a saudi philosophy ebcouraged by it's rulers. It's worrying if you have an american president that can't tell the difference between a terrorist attack and an attack by a nation state. That the US would lose it's sovereignty because of terrorists is a ludicrous notion. No external threat is trying to invade or take over your country no one is threatening your way of life and the only way you will cease to be a free people is if you are daft enough to elect leaders that take it away from you.

posted by oscar

Terrorism will not go away over night, nor will Russia's threat to nuke Poland etc etc. I don't believe that Obama can heal the world by speeches alone. I think back to "The bay of pigs" scenario with the Kennedy administration & the guts JFK had to call Cuba's bluff. That's the kind of person i'd like to see in the Whitehouse.

Russia hasn't threatened to nuke poland or anybody else in actual fact they have destroyed most of the intercontinental ballistic missiles. It's actually america that has renaged on nuclear disarmament treaties and that has wrecked the nuclear proliferation treaties -it is America that is putting missiles along russian borders not the other way round. Were you putin faced by an increasingly aggressive america stirring up trouble along your borders what you you do?

http://hnn.us/articles/12185.html

For decades, the NPT worked reasonably well. By 1997, no additional nations possessed nuclear weapons and, through arms control and disarmament treaties or unilateral action, the nuclear powers substantially reduced the number of nuclear weapons in their stockpiles. As late as the NPT review conference of 2000, the declared nuclear powers professed their â€œunequivocalâ€ commitment to nuclear abolition.

But, since that time, the Republican-dominated U.S. Senate rejected ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (negotiated and signed by President Bill Clinton), India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, and the Bush administration withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, pressed forward with the deployment of a national missile defense system (a latter day version of â€œStar Warsâ€), dropped nuclear disarmament negotiations, and proposed the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons. Furthermore, two new nations may be acquiring a nuclear weapons capability: North Korea (which claims it is) and Iran (which claims it is not).

Also bear in mind that while the US did get involved in ww2 eventually one of the reasons both France and the UK insisted on an independent nuclear deterrent is because there was no way of being certain the US would act in defence of it's allies if we were attacked by russia

posted by jab

Why? Last I checked, the world isn't registered to vote in our elections. I didn't think we needed your approval any more then any other country needs ours.

You don't need it at all but if McCain gets in and the foreign policy continues the way it has been then the calls for our withdrawal from involvement in Iraq and afghanistan will become an insistent demand. Nato is likely to break up since we don't want to get involved in wars that don't need to be fought. I reckon you'll see a european defence force come in to being and hopefully the pretence that the UK has a special relationship with the US is increasingly seen for what it is -just an illusion. Nobody knows about obama really and your domestic politics are your own problem but McCain comes across as another militaristic right wing nutter. That worries your allies since we could get drawn in to another war.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:31 am

qsducks;983436 wrote: Bush has promised aid to Texas after Hurricane Ike and of course Texas is his home state. Does anyone think he will deliver it and take in mind Katrina and that failure.

Of course he will...

The government will do everything they possibly can to give aid to hurricane victims since hurricane Katrina...It makes them look all the more "caring" and "responsible".

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:41 pm

I predict a McCain/Palin win in November. Obama is looking like a party baloon three days later. Biden announcing Obama should have picked Hillary instead of him isn't helping.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:08 pm

i wouldn't care who is Obama running mate. I would NEVER vote for him, ALI-Obama.

Tan · Post by **Tan** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:40 pm

Obama all the way! Unfortunately, I dont get to vote.

I love that Sarah is a woman, and a smart woman, although I find her less experienced than I would have liked.

I think Barrack has all the right ideas for positive change.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:20 pm

Tan;984080 wrote: Obama all the way! Unfortunately, I dont get to vote.

I love that Sarah is a woman, and a smart woman, although I find her less experienced than I would have liked.

I think Barrack has all the right ideas for positive change. tan, dear Obama keeps saying change. My feelings are change to what?? I feel much worse. i have been voting since the mid 70's. this will be the very first time. i will vote Republican. It is not a vote for McCain but a vote against Obama. The less of 2 evils. a sad state of affairs I feel about this election.:-5:mad::(:-1

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:24 pm

southern yankee;984090 wrote: tan, dear Obama keeps saying change. My feelings are change to what?? I feel much worse. i have been voting since the mid 70's. this will be the very first time. i will vote Republican. It is not a vote for McCain but a vote against Obama. The less of 2 evils. a sad state of affairs I feel about this election.:-5:mad::(:-1
Then don't vote for McCain, either. Send a signal that neither major party is doing the public's will. Vote for someone else - anyone else - if it's a vote against one of the candidates.

That's what I'm doing.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:30 pm

Accountable;984093 wrote: Then don't vote for McCain, either. Send a signal that neither major party is doing the public's will. Vote for someone else - anyone else - if it's a vote against one of the candidates.

That's what I'm doing. i know what you are saying. we have had this discussion before. Well you probably are right. But still a sad state of affairs. we all know one of them will win. I just can't help but voting for the less. this vote is out of fear. for what could happen if Obama did:( get in.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:32 pm

Ralph Nader is probs the lesser of two evils.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:43 pm

qsducks;984096 wrote: Ralph Nader is probs the lesser of two evils.
He's been the butt of jokes for so long I can't take him seriously. Do you know what main issues are?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:45 pm

Accountable;984102 wrote: He's been the butt of jokes for so long I can't take him seriously. Do you know what main issues are?

Right now in my house hubs & I are having huge issues over the two candidates. I'm Dem/he's Independent. He's in love with Sarah and I'm not.:wah:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:51 pm

Hoss;973061 wrote: This is an interesting discussion I see points on both sides. But If I were in a country being invaded by either China or The USA, I'd surrender to the US but I'd fight to the death against China. If I were an Iraqi right now, Iâ€™d give up to the US not Iran or a terror group. Iâ€™d have been one of those joining the police force to help my people recover and develop a new nation.

Now imagine you'd been brought up in an oriental society? If your underlying philosophy was based on an eastern mindset would you still make the same choice? As for Iraq, they are still an Arab Muslim society will far more affinity to other Arab Muslim societies that to Western Christian societies - why should they surrender to the US?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:28 pm

I shall probably upset a great many people here & Yes, it probably was the daily Mail i read it in. Sorry folks, no time to google but, i read an article in our national press, can't remember who wrote it but it was about two wks ago.

The accusation was that millions & millions of black people have never bothered going to the polls to vote due to white candidates only. The feeling allegely was that with whites up for The Whitehouse, the country would never really be about them. For the first time, it is believed these millions of black folk will turn to the polls as finally, they have a black man to vote for. Obama is likely to rack up millions of black votes when he could be "Mugabe" in a mask. What would be the truth if the black electorate didn't show up for him?? (If this artical is true)?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:35 pm

And I hope they do vote and let's not forget about Bush & Katrina.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:06 pm

qsducks;984129 wrote: And I hope they do vote and let's not forget about Bush & Katrina.
Still blaming Bush for New Orleans' mayor's & governor's screwups, or do you mean just the screwups before and after the botched evacuation?

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:36 pm

I'll make a presidential prediction. I predict that the next president, no matter who it is or what party he comes from will make mistakes. I will further predict that the other party will blow the mistakes up as big as possible to make their party look good. Tearing down someone elses house to build your own will remain the preferred method of gaining power.

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:48 pm

Nomad;971680 wrote: See the little yellow and orange markings ?

Thats where the majority of the people in Alaska live. So when they tell you Palin manages the largest state in the US dont believe the hype.

LOL, you dolt! Alaska IS the largest state duh!, not THE MOST POPULATED! It is the state with MASSIVE resources, with coast on over three-quarters of its border and a forigen country at its back. :wah: McCain-Palin will win this election.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:02 am

Ian;984225 wrote: If America vote for McCain then America will rot in hell,

and the rest of the world will become more distant from you and your foreign policies will destroy your children..

If Americans vote for McCain then you will be a nation of idiots who will reap what they sow, your sovereignty is gone only maritime law matters in your country, you are citizens of a corporate state and your country is becoming a serious problem for the rest of the world........
Don't be fooled, Ian. We're gonna go through hell no matter which one gets elected. Wouldn't that be wild if the US were to cause your prediction to come true?

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:47 am

Accountable;984135 wrote: Still blaming Bush for New Orleans' mayor's & governor's screwups, or do you mean just the screwups before and after the botched evacuation? someone who lives in La. it was a team effort for all the blunders. not just the Mayor of New Orleans. But a large cast of characters. plus, N.O. was not the only damage there. MS. was forgotten. Still devastation there. From Bush on down, all are guilty. That is like now. we had damage from Gustav. We are forgotten now after Ike:(

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:04 pm

Given the state of your economy how much of it can be laid at the door of the president? I mean when did the brakes come off on such high risk lending to the sub prime market??

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:29 pm

Accountable;984239 wrote: Don't be fooled, Ian. We're gonna go through hell no matter which one gets elected. Wouldn't that be wild if the US were to cause your prediction to come true? agree:(

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:23 pm

southern yankee;984524 wrote: someone who lives in La. it was a team effort for all the blunders. not just the Mayor of New Orleans. But a large cast of characters. plus, N.O. was not the only damage there. MS. was forgotten. Still devastation there. From Bush on down, all are guilty. That is like now. we had damage from Gustav. We are forgotten now after Ike:(That's why it's a huge blunder to trust gov't to fix things. Neighbors help neighbors. Washington's a thousand miles away and paralyzed by bureaucracy.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:51 pm

Accountable;984833 wrote: That's why it's a huge blunder to trust gov't to fix things. Neighbors help neighbors. Washington's a thousand miles away and paralyzed by bureaucracy.

Cities are the ideal unit of government as long as they don't grow beyond 100K in population. There should be a law that makes them remain smaller than that. The further the elected officials get from the people they are accountable to the worse things get.

Palin got executive experience answering directly to the people as a small city councilor and mayor where you live next door to the people you are working for. I'll take that experience over Obama's, Biden's and McCain's anytime.