U.S. Presidential Election 2008

In my opinion, Obama should have spoken with Wright and expressed why he disagreed with his pastor, and, without denouncing Wright personally, advocated his own viewpoint with other parishioners where it disagreed with that of Wright. If he couldn't find a way to do that, how will he do that with 300 million people of diverse viewpoints and perspectives- and why in the world should he?

If it's wrong to impose your personal faith on a church, surely a similar imposition on a country of 300 million, which you and KK seem to be calling for, would be even more wrong. Note also Obama did not leave Trinity until Wright publicly insulted him.


Assuming you are correct about Johnson's motivation for endorsing Obama, I think you will have to admit that if it is a matter of political expedience than that's not genuine grounds for the endorsement, and thus still nothing to boast about.

Hardly expect BtC to boast about Boris Johnson for christ's sake, do try and keep up with the polt Conq.
BtC quite clearly said that BJ is a buffoon but no fool and knows where his bread buttered.

Obama has his faults and I have held from the beginning that if he wins, plenty of people are going to be disapointed.
But McCain is exactly what Europeans DON'T want in a US President right now.

I think Boris Johnson is quite a character, and I mean that in a positive way, however I find it absolutely ridiculous when white, upper-class politicians pontificate about what should happen in the US, when nothing even remotely similar is anywhere on the horizon at home.

People need to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to Barack Obama too. Many years ago, while he was attending Wright's church regularly, including getting married and having his children baptized by the latter, he was a nobody from a comfortable background who needed credentials as a "brutha" in order to get his political career going. It many ways, it doesn't surprise me one bit that he never spoke out before.

MT, it's not the Europeans' choice (except for those who are also US citizens). A lot of erroneous assumptions seem to be being made in Europe about both McCain and Obama.

Anyhow, here is an article that focuses primarily on the time period comprising Obama's legislative career in Illinois, accurately pointing out that Obama doesn't talk much about that period of his life:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...15/386abhgm.asp

Interesting piece. IIRC, this originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune.

Like Obama just materalized out of nowhere to run for president, you don't live in Illinois, do you. Just because you may not have heard of him, doesn't mean he led a 'quiet, comfortable' exsistance. I know he's had to work and give 120% because you are right about one thing, he's had to struggle to prove himself to not just to the black community, but in the white political arena as well. So since when is pragmatism and perseverence considered a negative? Especially for a young black american in politics.


[attachment=82470:Obama_St...tor_1990.jpg] Obama State Senator 1990

FYI, in 1990 Obama was not an Illinois State Senator.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner...

Suddenly you change your tune on the concepts of the state and nation?

McCain and Brittney Spears

Nothing even remotely??? You have said this before and I corrected you then. There have been non-white politicians in the UK since the late 19th century and the present government has now and has had several non-white cabinet members including two black women. It really is only a matter of time before a prime minister is non-white. And remember that the UK had a woman prime minister almost thirty years ago.

I heard on the grapevine she is a little peaky.

<checks there is a bottle of wine in the fridge>

Why Are The Specifics For McCain's Proposals Missing??

Yet again, McCain tends to be less open to revealing details other than repeating proven failed GOP rhetoric.

As usual, rabid Obama supporters fail to see their own candidate's shortcomings. From the article posted by KK:


AND


This is one reason why I am impressed by neither Obama nor McCain.

If this is a personal attack, then I want every "rabid Obama", "Obama cultist", "Obamaniac", etc. that Conq and others have posted removed as well. To me and others that I have talked to, these are personal attacks.

Obama says he'll order review of executive orders
JESSE J. HOLLAND AP




I think it's about time someone decided to say, enough is enough.

FYI, eurovol, here is the relevant definition of "rabid"-


Any reader of these threads would agree that your support for Obama is "zealous or enthusiastic". It's not an insult or personal attack, it's a statement of fact. Or do you wish to claim your support for Barry O is lukewarm?

Anyone so inclined is welcome to search for eurovol posts using the words "daft" or "Repugs" and see what the results are- might be illuminating for at least one Tennessean.

Here is a list of GWB executive orders:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

In light of the Obama campaign soundbite one if his suppoters posted above, I suggest that Obama supporters state specifically which executive orders they find objectionable and why (and I am not suggesting in any way none of them are, nor have I read through all of them). Or is that another vague, fuzzy statement from Obama that has yet to be defined by specific details?

Executive order 13438

Best summarized in the following video

Good one!

McCain's only positive is that he's a POW. But with his refusal to back the GI BIll (which passed in Congress thanks to Democrates) he started a backlash from many Veterans. Now, there are thousands of VA's rallying in an anti-war protest that will be taking place as the Republican Party gets set to prepare for the opening day of their Convention.

McCain Will Not Be Getting Their Votes

Thousands Expected To Protest

The most offensive thing about executive orders at this point is that Bush would bother taking a shortcut when he knows Congress, even now, would rubber-stamp just about any legislation he put out there, anyway. Witness the new FISA legislation, which Obama voted in favor of.

Just one executive order has rankled some of you (I have yet to read that one, BTW)?

Cinzia, every president uses executive orders, sometimes to get something done quickly. Which specific executive orders would you say were substituted for potential legislation that Congress would not have passed (keep in mind any executive order can be de facto amended or overriden by congressional legislation)? Personally, I think that the legislative bodies should be dealing with almost every issue, but there are times when an executive order accomplished something much more quickly- one salient example being Harry Truman's executive order desgregating the military in 1948.


Once again, McCain's position is badly misrepresented by an Obama supporter. McCain opposed the amount of time that a servicemember would have to serve before becoming eligible for the new GI Bill, which is only three years, because he, as is the Pentagon, was concerned about the effects of retention. McCain wanted to propose an alternative that would reward the troops on a sliding scale based upon their years of service but not be as damaging to retention.

As for some veterans wanting to protest at the Republican convention, what does that have to do with the new GI Bill? Nothing whatsoever. There are always protesters at conventions, and some veterans have already protested against Iraq (the opinion of veterans is obviously not going to be monolithic). McCain will probably win a majority of the votes of those who have served or are currently serving their country in the military.

Isn't there something inherently wrong with that phrase?

No.

Absolutely there's something wrong with it, and you have the good sense to realize it.

Some more valuable info on McCain's lack of support toward fellow Vets : Inter Press Service:


Urging McCain To Sign The Bill
Vets To McCain ... BACK THE GI BILL

The reason for McCain's refusal ... To force men and women to stay in the military more than required three years minimum of service. The Alternate he would sign, increases education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. McCain is afraid serving men and women will high tail it out of the miliary should he become President. Considering he's talking on his campaign about staying the course in Iraq on Bush's heels ... one can understand, but it still doesn't justify why a former POW has not fully supported Veterans concerns.

You must not know how important retention is for the military, even in peacetime. Frankly, KK, you don't know what you are talking about here. Also, the new GI Bill is not an improvement for everyone, and a lot of people do not realize that they aren't even eligible for it. I see nothing wrong with rewarding people more for additional years of service, especially given that retaining experienced personnel costs less than recruiting and training new personnel. Furthermore, one can always opt for the existing GI Bill, which vests full benefits for three years of service, and, again, is actually better for some former servicemembers. Given that any servicemember can opt for the traditional GI Bill that they signed up for when they enlisted and that the sliding scale would still have provided benefits, no one would have been "forced" to stay in the military simply to collect GI Bill benefits. The concept of rewarding those more for longer periods of military service is already very
common- for example, you normally only get retirement pay after serving for at least 20 years.

As for Iraq, you continue to misrepresent McCain's position, but I expect no less from Obama supporters.

maybe you should go tell that to all the angry veterans who are rejecting McCain Conquistador. See how they respond to your pompous sophistry.

Maybe, BTC, you should actually read what I post and learn something about US military benefits before you start spouting off about topics on which you aren't well-informed. Those veterans who are angry (and they are a minority whether Obama supporters want to admit it or not) are primarily angry about things other than the GI Bill (now anyhow law) and it is about the GI Bill I was commenting.

When it comes to pomposity, BTC, you are nonpareil on TT, particularly in your arrogant demands that the rest of the world accomodate your personal wishes and desires, no matter how unrealistic or coercive they may be, e.g., completely banning cars from cities.

And that's reason enough to vote him.

I do think cars should be banned from cities. I do NOT think I should seize the power to create a totalitarian state and ban cars against everyone's wishes. There is a difference. We live in a democracy FFS. If a majority of the population were ever to come round to my, admittedly fairly extreme, viewpoint on this matter then I daresay a ban could follow us electing a government to do so.

But back to you. Someone points out that a lot of veterans are angry with McCain for a lot of reasons and then you post something to the effect that they have nothing to be angry about and should instead be glad. I was just pointing out that you shouldn't be telling us but should instead be telling them so that you can hear their cries of thankyou for enlightening them.

I don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem or if you are just deliberately trying to misrepresent what I posted, but the end result is the same- you comment ignorantly on something and inaccurately interpret what I post. Go back and read what I posted and if you still don't understand what I said, ask for specific clarification as to what specific words meant. As a US veteran, I know a whole lot more about this topic than some UK Labour Party activist does, so if something doesn't sound right to you, ask for clarifications instead of hurling unfounded accusations.

As for telling you and KK, yes, you both need some enlightenment on this topic, so I will exercise my right to free speech and correct your misperceptions and/or misrepresentations on this topic. Note also that a good deal of what I posted was a rebuttal to KK's comments (surely His Royal Highness BTC would find such activity permissible).

Pure democracy is not always a good thing. The rights of the minority are not always protected. Look at the early 30's here in Germany when the National Socialists rose to power, and they weren't even a majority party... There must be balance and protections.

I would suggest maybe you propose a London solution, make people pay to drive around town. But that probably is not socialist enough, favoing the elite that have "exploited the workers" to get ahead.

Maybe you could increase the driving infrastructure with some of that gas tax from the $10/gallon gas? Our roads in the states aren't too bad. Even driving in NYC and Boston is workable.

I know, Monorails!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL779xvxwA8
I bet BHO and McCain both go for monorails!

Shoe, meet other foot!

Problem for you, eurovol, is that I can back up what I say (especially if it is about economics) and when it comes to most of what he posts on US topics about which he is woefully uninformed, BTC cannot (come to think of it, that's sometimes the case for you, too eurovol). Some Obama supporters are so in love with their candidate that they cannot see nuances and cannot even imagine that there is anything positive about Obama's opponent (see, in particular, the comments of KK and UK voter BTC).

Grumpy Old Man: McCain Engages In Same Campaigning He Once "Deplored"

Washington Post: "McCain's Ad Formula Employs Lowest Common Denominator."
"Even some McCain allies have winced at the Paris/Britney spot. Republican strategist Dan Schnur, a former McCain adviser, said that 'most voters won't see the parallels between a presidential candidate and two party girls. So a legitimate point about inexperience gets lost in the appearance of name-calling.'" [Washington Post, 8/1/08]

New York Times: "Low-Road Express."
"Well, that certainly didn't take long. On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove's low-minded and uncivil playbook". [NY Times, 7/30/08]

USA Today: McCain Attack Ad "Baloney," "Cheapens Campaign. More To Come?"
"Even by the elastic standards of political ads, this is more than a stretch. It's baloney. It's also a marker on the path toward the kind of simplistic, counterproductive demonizing that many expect will poison the fall campaign." [USA Today, 7/29/08]

FactCheck.org: McCain Energy, Celebrities ad "False."
"McCain's new ad claims that Obama 'says he'll raise taxes on electricity.' That's false. Obama says no such thing. McCain relies on a single quote from Obama who once - and only once so far as we can find - suggested taxing 'dirty energy,' including coal and natural gas. That was in response to a reporter's suggestion that a tax on wind power could fund education. Obama isn't proposing any new tax on electricity or 'dirty energy' as part of his platform, and he never has. It's true that a coal/gas tax would raise electric rates, but so would a cap-and-trade program to restrict carbon emissions. Cap-and-trade is an idea that both McCain and Obama support, in different forms. Neither candidate characterizes cap-and-trade as a 'tax.'" [FactCheck.org, 7/30/08]



And might I also add, the reason to vote for him. Seems Obama's honesty in this campaign trumps McCain by milestones. One didn't have to wait long to see McCain's desperation set in.

Sounds to me like KK is desperate. Honesty in campaigning? Like promising in 2007 to filibuster the FISA bill if immunity for telecoms was included in it?

Not sure how a candidate can be "desperate" when he is polling within the margin of error in most nationwide and swing state polls before either party has even had its convention.

One other thing, KK, it was you who recently complained vociferously that McCain was getting a free pass from the MSM. Guess you were wrong about that, too.

No you can't. You post your opinion and claim it is the truth, along with a thesis on whatever misinterpretation you have decided to blind people with. I post my opinion and tell you that it is my opinion. That is the difference! AND, when it comes to economics, there are two sides to every coin. Simply dismissing the messenger because you don't like the message is not backing up what you say. You have done that on numerous economists and posters here. Actually, you pretty much do that to anyone and everyone who dares to disagree with the almighty Cong the Great! Your debating style is akin to carpet bombing and throwing a few sidewinders in to misdirect.

Now I think I am going to go out and spend my IRS stimulation payment. As a voting and tax paying US Citizen (and former military), I can do that and may just donate it to Barack Obama to stimulate the US. Couldn't think of a better use for it actually.

A fool and his money are soon parted...

eurovol, it seems as though you are in need of a few reality checks. At any rate, that one is giving an opinon can be inferred, it does not ncessarily need to be announced by trumpeting heralds.

As for the opinion of economists, you may need to familiarize yourself with some variant of the saying, "eighty economists have one hundred different opinions".

I prefer to discuss the facts, eurovol. Funny how you accuse me of doing things that people like you and that fraternal activist of yours BTC do all the time to me.

What was the population of the US?

eurovol and I might be surprised to find we are 'fraternal activists' as we are from widely different parts of the political spectrum.

And as for employing the bogus strategies you use to cover your own lack of substantive argumens: I don't see eurovol doing it and I am pretty sure I don't too.

I had a good laugh at your vague and unsubtantiated claim- I regularly debunk claims made by both of you, so it's not too surprising that you would say something like that. You (BTC) remain badly informed about the US and continue to often either misrepresent what I post or fail to read it accurately and I will continue to expose that activity, as well as your (both BTC and eurovol) own personal attacks, and the like.

The fraternal reference is due to the fact that you both are/have been party activists in what are fraternal parties of the left in their respective countries- for example, the UK Labour Party usually sends representatives to the Democratic Presidential Convention. It was made only within that sense, although I think (note to eurovol: it's my opinion) that the two of you do seem to share a lot of the same political views.

Last time they had the kind of executive power the US government has, well, I'll spare you the details.


If you want to start a thread about Colin Powell, you're free to do so, but I think that we were talking about Obama, a middle class white kid who went to two of the most expensive schools in the country and then went to Chicago to make a name for himself politically.


?? Help me out here.


You pulled a name out of the hat of some obscure politician who served a term. I am talking about a head of government.


These people are as pathetic as the Swiftboat types.


Oh well, there go your usual debating tactics down the drain...

Yeah, and I just don't get it still. Left, super-left, and super-duper-left. ??

I really do want some sort of references. I honestly don't get the nuances. Democratic-marxism? Socialist dictatorships? Communist and their varieties? ? ? It all seems like bigger government, more redistribution of wealth, and more government control of industry.

In the US, we get dems and pubs and not a lot usually separates them.

Some traditional separators (althoght not always consistent, very general)
Left----------------------- Right
OK to kill fetus----------- Not OK to kill fetus
Not OK to have guns ----OK to have guns
OK to cut military -------- Not OK to cut military
Gay marriage OK -------- Gay marriage not OK
Big social programs OK -- Big social programs not OK
OK to raise taxes --------- Not OK to raise taxes

Hope my table stays a bit aligned...

Please do ... we are talking about the US elections.


When Colin Powell decides he wants to have the presidential seat, then perhaps I will. Last time I checked, Obama was STILL a Black American (albeit of mixed race). You fault him for having to work hard to make a name for himself, I see it as a leadership trait in his political standing to represent all Americans. Something we need in a presidential candidate.


I'd love to see you stand up on a soapbox and tell them that. Their opinions hold just as much weight, who knows the kind of influence they may have (as it's not just this one group, I googled up at least a dozen), puts McCain in a vulnerable position regardless with VA's in general. (did I add that Bush, who also steadfast opposed the proposal, had the nerve to congratulate not just himself, but McCain on the passing of the GI BIll. Both a bunch of liers, and can do it with a straight face, which is worse.)

Your evidence, as an Obama supporter, that McCain is in trouble with veterans (a group of possibly more than ten million voters) is...? Some websites, and some organizations' complaints? Wow, there are always some disgruntled veterans, because, yes, some people do get screwed over, but that isn't McCain's fault since he does not run the Veterans Administration. The disabled veterans' organization you cited above skewered McCain for not giving them what they want. They may well have legitimate complaints, but we don't have all the facts just from what KK has posted, nor do we have McCain's side of the story. Lest someone misrepresent my comments, let me state clearly that we must take care of disabled veterans by giving them the medical and psychiatric/psychological care they need.

The new GI Bill is less of an issue than you realize, and this goes beyond what I posted earlier.

Many, perhaps most, initial enlistments are for more than three years. While on active duty, CLEP, DSST, and ECE exams are all free to servicemembers, plus 100% tuition reimbursement up to $250 a credit hour, and a significant number of US universities offer a military tuition rate around that level or at it. This means that you usually do not have any need to use GI Bill benefits while on active duty.

As for lies, despite the deluded claims of some Obama supporters, he has engaged in them as well. Politicians lie and they flip-flop- it's part of the game of politics and that's why we don't like politicans.

Anyway, McCain is polling much better with veterans than he is with non-veterans, which I think explains why KK has made such an issue of veterans:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...mccain_56_to_37

Uhm. You brought France and Germany's executive power on this thread, if I recall correctly...


He's an African American, but he had all the benefits of a comfortable white, middle class upbringing, and "blackified" himself through his stint in Chicago. As I have said before, they don't do cocaine at parties on Saturday night in the South Side of Chicago.


Are you serious? Don't you realize that Obama is a politician just like anyone else, or have you actually fallen for the cult of personality? Talk about all your bases belonging to us!?! Jeez...


We're all on soapboxes here. The point is that these groups only serve one purpose: to defame and drag their target's name through the mud.


The crux of the issue is that if Conquistador were a pro-Obama poster, you and your ilk would be kissing his ass with wide eyed idolatry, drooling at his every word, like bushmen being introduced to electrical appliances for the first time in their lives.

er, Thatcher WAS head of government and was not in any way obscure and there have been several non-white cabinet members, likewise not obscure. Look I don't doubt it would be a significant achievement for Barrack Obama to become US president but please don't use that as evidence that the UK is back in the dark ages on issues of race or other minority issues because, if you knew anything about it at all, you would realise how stupid an assumption it is.

a) Thatcher is a woman.
b) Please don't try to stir up the usual US/Europe shit. I didn't say that Britain, or the rest of Europe for that matter, are in the dark ages. I simply stated that leading European politicians, such as the mayor of a major city, should not weigh in with nonsense about the political situation in the US when their own countries have neither had a head of government who is a minority nor will have one in the foreseeable future. An American politician who would make similar comments about anything related to Europe would be told to go f-ck himself on the spot.

look we are very likely to have our first Jewish prime minister shortly (Disraeli having been ba professed Anglican though the son of a prominent Jewish author). But the challengers to Brown could just as easily have been black or asian too.

And the mayor of London - who cares about him, I certainly don't other than to note that even the upper class far right of England nopw seem to support an Obama presidency.