The ..2012.... Political thread
-
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.
-
rich n:
Thank God we have this in place http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html
Totally agree.
-
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the foreign enemies of the U.S. are hoping Obama wins so they can be ready to pounce on his inexperience and vulnerability as the Freshman Senator rides the learning curve if elected. We don't need McBush,er, McCain with his Iraq policy and his intention to perpetuate Bush's tax cuts to the rich either. Hillary Clinton will be ready on day 1 of taking office because she will have the experience of First Husband Bill Clinton from which to draw. Bill Clinton left a surplus that Bush squandered into trillion dollar debt. Americans were better off as a whole under Mr. Clinton. Also she has First Lady experience and more Senate experience than Obama. Plus Hillary will choose a worthy Vice President so with her it's a 3 for 2 deal and a force to be reconed with. Hell, I don't even think Obama is experienced enough to be Vice President. Mrs. Clinton's remark about her getting all the first questions in last Wednesday's debate wasn't a whine it was to point out that once she answered the questions based on her experience Obama could merely springboard off Mrs. Clinton's answers or say Hillary is right on this one. I'm surprised that Chris Mathews and Keith Oberman with their supposed insight as political commentators didn't pick up on this. "Saturday Night Live" picked up on it in last night's (March 1) show and Hillary quoting "SNL" with the pillows quip in the last debate was meant to also point out Obama's inexpereience. Younger voters are riding the crest of Obama's supposed "Change" but he is basing his good judgement about being against the Iraq War on a 2002 speech when he wasn't even in the U.S. Senate, thus, when the war was voted on Obama wasn't even a U.S. Senator and couldn't even vote on the issue. I don't hear Sen. Obama offering specifics of his plan for change, if there is one. Change seems to be used as a euphamistic buzz word to no specifics. Where's the light at the end of the tunnel? I fear Obama will be a figurehead, just as Reagan was. Regan's cabinet ran the country while Reagan used his acting skills to give the speeches and fall asleep at cabinet meetings. Supporters of Reagan think his economic policies were great because his tax cuts gave Americans more take home pay. We are now paying for living fat in the '80's and not recognizing the changing economic trends then while executives got fatter pockets at the expense of the economy, which is being perpetuated with the present policies of Mr. Bush. The rich cringed when the middle class became better off under Bill Clinton and we all know what happened over the last 7+ years under George Bush. I hope that Ohio and Texas don't buy into the Obama hype and vote for the experienced candidate who is against permanent tax cuts for the rich and has an exit strategy for getting out of Iraq, Hillary Clinton. I can already feel the blood of people who don't agree with me boiling and ready to rip into me but my views are my views and I am posting them for the benefit of the undecided. Nothing more nothing less and I stick by what I said.
-
Does anyone actually believe the NY Times rumor that John McCain cannot run for USA President :
-
Not just the NYT running that story. And no I don't buy it. The canal was owned by the US and was transferred to Panama's control in 1977.
-
jaipur:
Not just the NYT running that story. And no I don't buy it. The canal was owned by the US and was transferred to Panama's control in 1977.
The NY Times Editors nominated (their pics) Hillary & McCain to run for USA President. Then weeks later they ran this story, which by title and majority of content makes it seem as if John McCain cannot legally hold the office of President. That is completely false He can legally run & he can legally hold the office No USA Senator No USA Congressperson has uttered the same malarky, they would not dare - if they wish to retain their office. The people would want them out for spreading false propoganda - even if it takes months to catch up to them And it would and/or will catch up to the propoganda spreaders most of whom are hiding behind the right to "freedom of speech". They risk mostly nothing. But the NY Times risks a loss of sales & reputation even in freedom of speech. Right now as we post, shareholders of the NY Times who are not happy with the direction of the publication are trying to get some people thrown off the NY Times board of directors! Under the current leadership subscriptions, sales, profits are down to record lows. The shareholders are holding every one of them accountable!!!
-
It's probably the same source that initiated the obama email. The board could resign except the board aren't the ones that write for the NYT. The story just preys on those who don't know civics or takes it on face value. If there was an issue of citizenship he would not hold a senate seat and would not retain it for over 20 years. (shrugs)
-
Andy_Shofar:
jaipur:
Not just the NYT running that story. And no I don't buy it. The canal was owned by the US and was transferred to Panama's control in 1977.
The NY Times Editors nominated (their pics) Hillary & McCain to run for USA President. Then weeks later they ran this story, which by title and majority of content makes it seem as if John McCain cannot legally hold the office of President. That is completely false He can legally run & he can legally hold the office No USA Senator No USA Congressperson has uttered the same malarky, they would not dare - if they wish to retain their office. The people would want them out for spreading false propoganda - even if it takes months to catch up to them And it would and/or will catch up to the propoganda spreaders most of whom are hiding behind the right to "freedom of speech". They risk mostly nothing. But the NY Times risks a loss of sales & reputation even in freedom of speech. Right now as we post, shareholders of the NY Times who are not happy with the direction of the publication are trying to get some people thrown off the NY Times board of directors! Under the current leadership subscriptions, sales, profits are down to record lows. The shareholders are holding every one of them accountable!!!
Of course they are. Print anything exposing the Rep and your spending the next years in court defending yourself, slandered or fired. I believe more on this McCain story about him and this lobbyist will come out. However it will be through government investigation that will be on going. There is no freedom of speech anymore in the US. There is no investigative journalism anymore in journalism. Just guys chasing starlets and scandal. Anyone expose anyone their hung out to dry, as liers or crazy. It used to be when someone was exposed all the journalist jumped on it. Now if they do they will be fired or some stockholder will force there boss to resign. There afraid to write a story because of lawsuit or personal attacks that could leave them without a job or broke If the story not true the Rep would blow it off and not go for revenge. There trying to discredit this story so it won't get legs again. A vote for McCain is a vote for slim. WHY IS CHENEY SECRETLY IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW! RIGHT BEFORE THE DEM VOTE. MAYBE TRYING TO ASSURE HILLARY GETS IN,KNOWING THEY CAN BEAT HER BUT KNOW IF OBAMA GETS IN THERE SUNK. PULLING SOME DIRTY TRICKS. THIS IS ABOUT WAR AND WHO WILL KEEP IT GOING AFTER BUSH IS GONE.
-
mustangsally10:
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
Well, going out of Iraq is easy. Making that a decent place, I mean, only what is was before is not that easy. But I don't think that who has caused the problem is gonna solve it... About the petrol lobby... well... OMG... I even don't believe someone can go against them and succeed, well, anything is possible.
-
[quote="jaipur"]
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.[/quote Nobody believes in the saviour legend but in the oppossite. The USA is seen as a manipulator of the whole world, getting inside of politics of almost half the countries. You know, South America, Asia, whatever... that's why USA have so many bases, they need some place to put the troops to attack Iraq or whatever country. Just a little story. In 2006, Morocco, (the Northern African country that's just below Spain in the map) invaded a tiny Spanish island. The NATO did anything about it!... it's supposed to be a alliance against any agressor... so why?... Probably cause Morocco is kind of alley of the USA. So some Spanish soldiers got to go for himselves and solve that tiny thing without NATO or whatever. What saviour of NATO of anything? And still people wonder why the US have such a bad image over the world. They only have good image... inside the US, if ever. There's no-one to call when it's trouble, there's no bad or good country. Of course it's just an opinion, I don't want to change any mind.
-
I appreciate your point, though I would suggest that NATO doesn't get inv olved in that type of dispute. Best I recall, the UK resolved the issue of the falkland islands (next to argentina) which belonged to them the same way Spain did. If a government requires a US presence, that is something that the US government can accommodate if appropriate. Neither Japan, Germany or Kuwait have released the US from that requirement to date. For that matter, neither has the Iraqi government.
-
Just a general question -- Has a debate ever changed your mind? (about a candidate)
-
Yesterday was Somalia.... For all the people in the USA that don't understand why their country (not their people but their gov!) have such a bad image in the world. Imagine it was the oppossite. Imagine a military command of Somalia inside the US, and destroying some houses in some city because they suspects there are terrorists living there that could attack Somalia. That is how the world feels.
-
The_Fool:
Just a general question -- Has a debate ever changed your mind? (about a candidate)
Yes, but only for the worst... the more I know about politician the less I like them... Spanish elections next Sunday could be depend on the weather, after the last TV debate. High participation, the left party wins. Low participation, the right party wins. So if it rains, there would be low participation and if it's sunny it will be high. I can see now politicians looking at the sky... BTW, what has happened in Russia? They say Putin still rules, but he's not president.