Re: OT: US Pres election
 

True. However it is only fair to point out that Palin is being forced to show ALL of her qualifications while Senator Obama isn't. It is lop sided. But by now we all know who we are going to support so all of this is really just cheap entertainment for us now. I am going to sit back and laugh at all the crap both sides is going to start flinging. Should be fun.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The biggest problem with all of you intellectuals is that you think too damned much. :)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Tell me about it. It made me bald. :shock:


Also, I very much dislike the time limit for edits..... I'd like to change my odd typo of 'petting' to 'petty' as it was supposed to be. Spellcheck doesn't get these things. :doh:

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

There's a reason why there are so many sheep references in politics and religion.

A large part of this election is a final verdict on Washington itself. Obama's rise to fame wasn't for any reason other than many liberals and moderates out-right rejecting the last 8 years of washington DC politics. A lot of people are fed up, tired, hurting, and broke as a result of the incompetence in DC. They see several hundred entrenched career politicians and lobbiest and pundits doing nothing along with media outlets from Fox News and CNN acting more like tabloids than news outlets.

But they also see problems rising up let right and center and nothing being done to fix it except piles of money being chucked at it in the hopes we can bury it with debt.

So when someone new steps up and starts talking to them about things that matter, that someone is suddenly heard.



See, I've concluded American political affiliations really don't matter at this point. We all want someone to hear our plight and help us before we have to start wearing Hoover Hats once again.

And thanks to Bush-O-Nomics, it won't matter who wins the presidency as the next president MUST raise taxes.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

This is sort of true and also sort of not true. His general experience is of a similar level to Palin's, and their capabilities as a statesmen and leaders, that may occur in decisions behind closed doors, is not clear.

However. Obama is a force. I don't live in the US, and I've known about him for several years as a major up-and-coming politician. In 3-4 years he's made a big impression. He campaigned so well he beat Clinton, who was a massively strong candidate, not just with pretty speeches but with solid organisation. Consequently, Obama has already proved he has leadership qualities, charisma, and can work in politics on a national and international level.

In contrast, Palin was completely obscure outside her home state, and it's a very low-population state. She had made little or no impact in the US never mind anywhere else, and was plucked out of nowhere for VP candidate.

That's really the difference. Obama has already been through the wringer and performed decently throughout, which means he has been tested. Palin has only just started to face tests, and she's already stumbled (such as her pretty incompetent Couric interview).

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Because what happens when we are low on money? The "Federal Reserve" prints more, and "loans" it to us. Where do they get it? It's paper. Who are they? The heads of the largest banks in the world.

Eventually we will owe the Federal Reserve so much money, that they could declare the nation bankrupt, and attempt to seize the "hard assets" of the nation, in order to recoup their "losses" (of "paper" that they "loaned" us). We already gave them Fort Knox to "hold onto".

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I thought almost by definition that "left wing" referred to the former. and "right wing" referred to the latter.

*takes cover*

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

That was actually a naughtily provocative post by me, but it does bring up the issue of the fundamental differences between the left and right wings.

My understanding was something like this. The left wing believe everyone should be as equal as possible. Hence they try to help those who are not fortunate enough to look after themselves, improve public services and so on. This seems very laudable.

The right wing would argue that laudable as it might be, such socialism is flawed and doomed to misery. People will always sponge off a welfare state, and most people who are poor are poor through their own lack of enterprise. Better to encourage business and entrepreneurship to produce money which will ultimately make the whole country richer, as well as providing jobs. By making things easier for the very rich, you end up helping everyone. Also by encouraging enterprise people have an enhanced sense of freedom and opportunity.

Would people say this is a roughly correct view of things?

As far as Americans are concerned by the way, I'm inclined to the left-wing side of things. But I think you wouldn't guess that from the way I wrote the above.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

My own take on left wing/right wing:

A right winger is opposed to any and all change unless he himself (or those close to him) profits from the change.

A left winger will accept change where he himself does not gain any benefit as long as someone less fortunate gains.

(Guess which way I lean.)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I don't subscribe to world bank conspiracies. Our current economic crisis is a direct result of the federal reserve authorizing banks to issue money that it didn't have (credit means new money printed) without securing a means to recoup that money. High gas prices and rising prices in general are a direct result of the inflation this has created.

Now one of the things that really irked me was McCain saying the gov't would buy up all the bad mortgages at the loan's value, then sell it at current market prices. In many cases the gov't will be dumping this property at a loss.

And mind you, the government would then hold all public lands in the mean time..

Welcome to the Soviet America.