The ..2012.... Political thread
-
mustangsally10:
21st Century Paul:
The_Fool:
That last election -- John Kerry did not have a plan -- he said with empty words -- but would not say what his plan was ... now there is another guy -- who seems to give good speeches -- but many times does not say what his plan is -- (same party ) ... B.O. At this time I do not plan on voting for the two who want to move the direction of this country to a socialist -type of agenda (my opinion only -- no cut and paste support -- or anything of the sort) However .... that only leaves a few standing -- and at this time I am not that convinced that they will do the job well either -- so it is an usure feeling about the whole thing so far
I get the same feeling, and I'm not american, maybe it's better so I don't have to worry over my vote. I would have to worry over my Spanish vote
. You know, "go ahead, throw away your vote, vote for none of the two parties"
. It's Democrazy... haha... PS: What is so special in Obama?. I try hard to see it but I don't. Bono talks good of him, Clooney so, ok, but I don't see anything, he doesn't say anything, and his web there's not anything that is out of the ordinary. (In his speeches he sounds like a good singer but without good songs...) That doesn't mean I'd prefer Clinton or a Rep. Only that I haven't find that special... well... he's black... that sure is a new thing for a President, but for the rest I don't see a thing. We're globalized, so the gov there influences here, and the gov here influences everywhere too. Like any gov change in Russia, China, France, UK or any... Cuba
. But I don't think there's gonna be any CHANGE really.
Obama is a different kind of candidate and would represent real change for the US and the world. One of the major differences is that his campaign is financed by ordinary people and not big business/special interests. Hillary and especially McBush (McCain) campaigns are mainly paid for by special corporate interests. The main reason we have the Iraq War is the oil companys lobby. The reason we are in a health care crisis is because of the drug and insurance companys lobbyists. It's all because of the money. So, Obama is trying to get the special interest money out of Washington. If you go to his website you can see the countdown of individual people who have contributed over 1 MILLION, and a person is never counted twice...I asked. There are other differences bwt him and the other candidates but I think that would create the greatest change. The american people getting their government back Peace
hmmm... okey if he is independent from the big companies... then he could bring new proposals... as the others are not independent, but again I do not see them. For instance, is there anything he would like to do about Iraq different to the others?
-
appletart2:
McBush I like it.
Do you think McBush and his mistress would swear in front of a grand jury under oath that his did not have sex with this woman like Clinton was forced to do. That he did not give political favors for sex. Has her body turned up floating anywhere? She certainly has not made any public appearances . I guess this is old news thanks to the contol of the American airwaves by the Rep party. Wow they even took away freedom of the press. Powerful evil people.
: If you want to be taken seriously.......stop reading the blogs..
-
jaipur:
The point was proven. Simply because you don't agree with it does not disprove it. As I said originally whether you thought it was "right" or "wrong" isn't the point....how tyou think hese candidates would have responded in that scenario is.
No matter how you color it, you did not prove your point. There's still time, you have 50 years of history to look into. I'll be waiting, but I'm sure you won't come through.
-
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
The point was proven. Simply because you don't agree with it does not disprove it. As I said originally whether you thought it was "right" or "wrong" isn't the point....how tyou think hese candidates would have responded in that scenario is.
No matter how you color it, you did not prove your point. There's still time, you have 50 years of history to look into. I'll be waiting, but I'm sure you won't come through.
I am not coloring anything. It seems you might be unfortunately. You requested that I "back up" the view on the invasion of japan. And so I did for your benefit. That was not from the 1990s but from the period in which it occurred. In my neighborhood, that's called "proof". You're the one who said that there wasn't any. Obviously there is. Presidents make decisions on what is known at the time, not 50 or 60 years after the fact. And as I suggested originally in my post, thinking about these 2008 candidates, what would they do three months into their term as Truman was with that scenario is what is relevant here, not whether you agree or disagree with what was actually done. How a voter views the candidates and what choice they believe that candidate would make helps in guiding their choice. As there is usually a guy with an attache case following the president wherever they go, it seems to be a reasonable approach.
-
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
It's an example of the types of decisions made in the Oval Office. That is what is being considered for these candidates. I can't say with absolute certainty that it would never be considered. And that's the point: They don't follow the president around with the "football" for nothing. One of the three will get it next. The proposed invasion of Japan is common in any american history class...maybe you missed it: "Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare. Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation. "
and where is the Japanese point of view?
Their point of view was called pearl harbor. Sounds like you need some history courses.
so in the wars USA are always the "good ones" and the others are "the bad ones"... like American movies characters... there's is good and bad in every nation. Nobody (outsides the USA) believes now in the "saviour legend" of the USA, even after hundred of Hollywood movies. What is the next country that is supposed to attack you so you can start another war?
After Vietnam, Afganistan, Korea, Japan, Iraq... ok, some country in Asia.
-
Scary!
-
21st Century Paul:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
It's an example of the types of decisions made in the Oval Office. That is what is being considered for these candidates. I can't say with absolute certainty that it would never be considered. And that's the point: They don't follow the president around with the "football" for nothing. One of the three will get it next. The proposed invasion of Japan is common in any american history class...maybe you missed it: "Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare. Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation. "
and where is the Japanese point of view?
Their point of view was called pearl harbor. Sounds like you need some history courses.
so in the wars USA are always the "good ones" and the others are "the bad ones"... like American movies characters... there's is good and bad in every nation. Nobody (outsides the USA) believes now in the "saviour legend" of the USA, even after hundred of Hollywood movies. What is the next country that is supposed to attack you so you can start another war?
After Vietnam, Afganistan, Korea, Japan, Iraq... ok, some country in Asia.
72 interventions since the second world war
2 mins 50 secs. Later in another interview Johns questions got too diificult , the interview was suddenly ended and John asked to leave. The British Government are no better......this is a disgrace If everyone would turn off sky / fox news....we may all get a better picture. -
moggy:
72 interventions since the second world war
2 mins 50 secs. Later in another interview Johns questions got too diificult , the interview was suddenly ended and John asked to leave. The British Government are no better......this is a disgrace If everyone would turn off sky / fox news....we may all get a better picture.The Shame of the world.
-
21st Century Paul:
moggy:
72 interventions since the second world war
2 mins 50 secs. Later in another interview Johns questions got too diificult , the interview was suddenly ended and John asked to leave. The British Government are no better......this is a disgrace If everyone would turn off sky / fox news....we may all get a better picture.The Shame of the world.
I am ashamed to be English watching the second one. I DID know about it, but i didnt realise that it was done under a Labour Government. It seems like 'old 'Labour were no better than 'new ' labour ( but NL are still contining the lies from the 60s) When something happens to my dog (which i hope is a long time
) i am going to get a rail pass , and do some traveling around Europe....i am sick of this country. I visited Bacelona about 4 years ago....loved it
The Israel - Palestinian problem may become a major item in the election, with what is going on.....45 Palestians blown up, and Isreal threatening a holocaust.
-
Well, recently has been the USA but I can talk about what Spain did in America, and all the indians killed. And the leaders of all that had their face of the paper money!. That has been the only good thing of having euros, not using anymore that paper money. And Russia and Germany and every country has a bad story behind. That's what built them... land is not given for free... it was for Israel... and still they are in war for it. What can I say... I hate politics. I'm glad now Spain is not part of something like that... we didn't enter World War II cause we had a Civil War then... I'm not very glad of being Spanish either. Milions were killed in that civil war and there's a lot of anger even now about it. No country is good no-one is saviour, there's not "bad guys" in power, no "good guys" either, it's the same everywhere and all it's history repeated. Bruce Springsteen is gonna sing a song... about a man who went "to kill the yellow man"- Born in the USA
Bruce's for President! -
21st Century Paul:
mustangsally10:
21st Century Paul:
The_Fool:
That last election -- John Kerry did not have a plan -- he said with empty words -- but would not say what his plan was ... now there is another guy -- who seems to give good speeches -- but many times does not say what his plan is -- (same party ) ... B.O. At this time I do not plan on voting for the two who want to move the direction of this country to a socialist -type of agenda (my opinion only -- no cut and paste support -- or anything of the sort) However .... that only leaves a few standing -- and at this time I am not that convinced that they will do the job well either -- so it is an usure feeling about the whole thing so far
I get the same feeling, and I'm not american, maybe it's better so I don't have to worry over my vote. I would have to worry over my Spanish vote
. You know, "go ahead, throw away your vote, vote for none of the two parties"
. It's Democrazy... haha... PS: What is so special in Obama?. I try hard to see it but I don't. Bono talks good of him, Clooney so, ok, but I don't see anything, he doesn't say anything, and his web there's not anything that is out of the ordinary. (In his speeches he sounds like a good singer but without good songs...) That doesn't mean I'd prefer Clinton or a Rep. Only that I haven't find that special... well... he's black... that sure is a new thing for a President, but for the rest I don't see a thing. We're globalized, so the gov there influences here, and the gov here influences everywhere too. Like any gov change in Russia, China, France, UK or any... Cuba
. But I don't think there's gonna be any CHANGE really.
Obama is a different kind of candidate and would represent real change for the US and the world. One of the major differences is that his campaign is financed by ordinary people and not big business/special interests. Hillary and especially McBush (McCain) campaigns are mainly paid for by special corporate interests. The main reason we have the Iraq War is the oil companys lobby. The reason we are in a health care crisis is because of the drug and insurance companys lobbyists. It's all because of the money. So, Obama is trying to get the special interest money out of Washington. If you go to his website you can see the countdown of individual people who have contributed over 1 MILLION, and a person is never counted twice...I asked. There are other differences bwt him and the other candidates but I think that would create the greatest change. The american people getting their government back Peace
hmmm... okey if he is independent from the big companies... then he could bring new proposals... as the others are not independent, but again I do not see them. For instance, is there anything he would like to do about Iraq different to the others?
Obama is the only candidate running for US pres. who was against the war from the beginning. Earlier in this thread I posted the speech he gave in 2002 against authorizing bu$h to go into Iraq where he gave his now famous statement " I am not opposed to war. I am opposed to a dumb war" Hillary and of course McBush (McCain)..who says the US should stay in Iraq 100 years, both voted to give bu$h authorization to go to war. Just today in Rhode Island, usa Obama said that he would get us out of Iraq but, also wanted to CHANGE the mindset that got us into the war in the first place. This can be done if there is independence from the oil company lobby and other lobbyists advocating staying in Iraq. So his independence from the lobbyists money would give him freedom to make a better decision then the other candidates. Getting out of Iraq will be incredibly difficult. Essentially it is an occupied country without a functioning government. So withdrawing troops has to be done cautiously without creating more bloodshed. The Iraq War has been the most disastrous foriegn policy decision in this generation. I trust someone (Obama) who understood the consequences of invading Iraq(see his speech back in this thread where he talked about the consequences...which all came true
) and does not have pressure on him because of lobbyists to get us out. Peace
-
21st Century Paul:
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
It's an example of the types of decisions made in the Oval Office. That is what is being considered for these candidates. I can't say with absolute certainty that it would never be considered. And that's the point: They don't follow the president around with the "football" for nothing. One of the three will get it next. The proposed invasion of Japan is common in any american history class...maybe you missed it: "Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare. Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation. "
and where is the Japanese point of view?
Their point of view was called pearl harbor. Sounds like you need some history courses.
so in the wars USA are always the "good ones" and the others are "the bad ones"... like American movies characters... there's is good and bad in every nation. Nobody (outsides the USA) believes now in the "saviour legend" of the USA, even after hundred of Hollywood movies. What is the next country that is supposed to attack you so you can start another war?
After Vietnam, Afganistan, Korea, Japan, Iraq... ok, some country in Asia.
If what you say is true, that "nobody believes now in the saviour legenc", than perhaps you can me why the US has a base in Germany and Japan. We're in Japan because their constitution after the war did not permit a military and there's a country in their neighborhood they're not sure of (China) as there's a country Europe isn't sure of (Russia). Since Korea was a UN action, why is it that it's the US in the DMZ and no other troops. South Korea wanted them because the North invaded. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, did they call on Italy or France to help them? Of course not That has nothing to do with movie characterizations ,Oliver.
-
Aren't you all worried that any political discussion about the US always heads into a historical discussion instead of a discussion about present and future!?
I don't think the people in trailer parks care about Japan, Russia and/or the history of Vietnam!
-
I wonder who Jack Nicholson would vote for...![](
-
Thank God we have this in place
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html
-
anna_medlicka:
Aren't you all worried that any political discussion about the US always heads into a historical discussion instead of a discussion about present and future!?
I don't think the people in trailer parks care about Japan, Russia and/or the history of Vietnam!
Past ?....the 'war on terror' still seems to be going on ....people are still being killed in Iraq and Afganistan ( we may be there for 40 years) Iran is still being threatened. NEW terrorists are being influenced every day, by our foreign policies.....i would not call that historical. To know what to avoid in the future , you have to look into the past. Hopefully the world may be a much safer place under Obama.....it cant get any worse.
-
moggy:
anna_medlicka:
Aren't you all worried that any political discussion about the US always heads into a historical discussion instead of a discussion about present and future!?
I don't think the people in trailer parks care about Japan, Russia and/or the history of Vietnam!
Past ?....the 'war on terror' still seems to be going on ....people are still being killed in Iraq and Afganistan ( we may be there for 40 years) Iran is still being threatened. NEW terrorists are being influenced every day, by our foreign policies.....i would not call that historical. To know what to avoid in the future , you have to look into the past. Hopefully the world may be a much safer place under Obama.....it cant get any worse.
Ya'll are tapped if you think this is all about Bush, Blair, Clinton or the man on the moon. It's about westernizing the planet and any of the puppets who gets elected will be instructed to stay the course...
-
I do not like the direction that the move on dot orgs and media matters etc want to go -- they have the money and want to own the candidate who makes it to President of the US -- how sad
-
rich n:
moggy:
anna_medlicka:
Aren't you all worried that any political discussion about the US always heads into a historical discussion instead of a discussion about present and future!?
I don't think the people in trailer parks care about Japan, Russia and/or the history of Vietnam!
Past ?....the 'war on terror' still seems to be going on ....people are still being killed in Iraq and Afganistan ( we may be there for 40 years) Iran is still being threatened. NEW terrorists are being influenced every day, by our foreign policies.....i would not call that historical. To know what to avoid in the future , you have to look into the past. Hopefully the world may be a much safer place under Obama.....it cant get any worse.
Ya'll are tapped if you think this is all about Bush, Blair, Clinton or the man on the moon. It's about westernizing the planet and any of the puppets who gets elected will be instructed to stay the course...
Yes i am afraid you are correct . Bush and bLair are just puppets. Big buisness runs the world.....and up to a point WHOEVER wins will do as they are advised (told).....cynacle .......but probably true.
-
moggy:
anna_medlicka:
Aren't you all worried that any political discussion about the US always heads into a historical discussion instead of a discussion about present and future!?
I don't think the people in trailer parks care about Japan, Russia and/or the history of Vietnam!
Past ?....the 'war on terror' still seems to be going on ....people are still being killed in Iraq and Afganistan ( we may be there for 40 years) Iran is still being threatened. NEW terrorists are being influenced every day, by our foreign policies.....i would not call that historical. To know what to avoid in the future , you have to look into the past. Hopefully the world may be a much safer place under Obama.....it cant get any worse.
Actually it can. Only this morning there was a report that Chavez (Venezuela) warned Colombia of war should they cross the border pursuing rebels. The "election" in Russia is today, yet Putin will still be in power. And both candidates took a page from Mondale's run for the presidency in 1984 both airing commercials of the "ringing phone" in the white house similar to the discussion here...all important in voters decisions.