U.S. Presidential Election 2008

I am simply suggesting that without any experience whatsoever (like NObama), you simply don't know what the f*ck you are talking about.

Believe it or not, BB, there's more to the functioning of the US government than the armed services. Americans are well able to make judgments about how we want our fellow citizens in uniform to conduct themselves and be treated by the government without ever having been in the military.

@krostitzer, why are you letting BadBob get away with calling you a traitor?

Yeah, like killing babies in late-term abortions like NObama wants to do.

@cinzia, what branch of the Armed Forces did you say you served in again?

Not least because our women in uniform, who are denied combat roles, are often in more danger from their fellow male soldiers than enemy forces, I decline to endanger myself for such dubious purposes.

Case Closed. You don't know what you are talking about.

@cinzia: bb can say all he wants as far as i care, anyone with a couple of spare brain cells will see that i've said nothing that makes me a traitor. such rhetoric is really un-european and i'd venture a guess that bb isn't even in germany? bb's words just prove my original point.

1/ a lot of soldiers come from familial lines of soldiering. to even question this paradigm equates to essentially dissing ones' entire heritage. Which is a real shame, because things have changed significantly since our brave grandpas went and served. And besides, the great people (some of which are soldiers of course) usually don't wear it on their sleeves!!

2/ certain paradigms are deeply ingrained into society. America is especially vulnerable to this due to its cultural/geographical isolation and the 2 party system, overwhelming media, etc.. things are so fucking black and white, it's pathetic. "Oh, you think McCain's a choad, huh? You sick Baby killer!!!"

3/ it is real difficult for any american to think outside of the american box. europeans usually cannot understand this. the degree of fear in america is epidemic.

4/ stuff like this is no fault of americans.. people are people. But seriously, things aren't going to get any better until people make some intelligent decisions and stop letting themselves be led by leaders who clearly aren't in it for the people.

You mean like NObama and Hillary?

haha right dude. let's vote for geriatric old man who will "lead" us through never ending war.

lets not even talk to iran. no negotiating allowed, they're evil, remember?? ok, let's just start bombing them, along with the beach boys (and watch oil go to $300 per barrel, and see who profits)

how dense could you possibly be? what waste of time this has been.

SEE FULL QUOTE.

peace out!

John McCain Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer (Video)

A president in the 21st century who needs his wife to help him use a computer?

If he could, you know he'd be on Toytown.

not hat they have a vote but Britain backs Obama over McCain 5:1

and this at a time when he Tories are in the ascendancy in the UK. Shows how much Bush has damaged even Conservative's views of the US Presidency.

I think there is a very strong argument for Britain having a vote in the U.S elections. For example their use of our country as a giant aircraft carrier for the last 60 years, and the fact that we are more endowed with common sense than our transatlantic cousins.

Britain can always apply to become the 51st State. Of course, you would have to get rid of the Monarchy and your state-sponsored religion and start drinking coffee.

Conservatives in the U.K would these days be called liberal commie sympathisers in the U.S, so that's hardly surprising.

Nah, I don't think many Brits would want that. We're just sick of watching you fuckwits make the same mistakes over and over again, (things like starting wars that you never actually win).

And the last war the British won without us was?

Predictably, you missed the point. I'm talking about wars that have been started by America and have not been successfully executed.
And anyway, if you really want to go down that path, just to remind you, as you are obviously one of the aforementioned personality types, Britain fought the Nazis virtually single handedly for almost a year until Uncle Sam decided to get involved when it realised it's own interests were at stake.

Face it, the sun has already gone down on the British Empire. Instead of wanting to become our 51st State, you probably have a better chance of becoming a Muslim nation. Been back home lately? There are more Muslims than Brits.

Nothing wrong with that.

Mad at the US for waiting a year? Happy they came at all? Saved you? Hurt you?

And you think Americans are confused.

Hope I have enough time to correct the large number of shibboleths in this post. First of all, Bush isn't on the ballot, nor was the US presidency as an institution the subject of the poll.

Any Tory rise in the polls has nothing to do with McCain or any Republican, thus the bit about Tory ascendancy is non sequitir, especially when you consider that David Cameron is definitely not the second coming of Margaret Thatcher, the slowing of the UK economy and Gordon Brown's relative ineptness as a politician. Perhaps the UK electorate has a bit of "New Labour fatigue".

Given the fawning UK press coverage given Obama, it is not the least bit surprising that he would do well in a poll vis-a-vis McCain. To wit:


Of course, I am not so sure all of Europe is going to be all that enthralled with an Obama presidency:



I wonder how long it will take the usual leftist suspects to denounce you for a racist remark. Oh, that's right, when a leftist says it, he/she is cheered by the leftist cognoscenti.

The US has, with permission from the UK government and within the rubric of the NATO alliance, had a military presence in the UK for decades. It meant the UK could spend somewhat less on defense. You have no coherent argument for voting in US elections.

The UK has its own issues to work out with the EU, so I think that should be your area of emphasis.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The U.S. should have never gotten involved in the European theater in WWII. Europe should have been left under rubble, Fascism and ultimately Communism - to figure it out on their own.

No shit Sherlock, the British Empire ended in 1945, someone's obviously been rereading his third grade history books. Do you want to incorporate some facts in to your bigoted generalisations? London and a couple of northern cities are the main centres for Islamic communities in the U.K and it is unlikely that those communities will ever spread in to rural areas, so the impact of Islam on the lives of average British citizens will continue to be minimal. I have family and friends in London, the majority of whom are white atheists, and from what they have told me, they have absolutely no problem with living alongside people of other religious beliefs or skin colour. So before you make ridiculous ill informed comments like that, you should make a trip to London yourself and educate yourself.

Educate yourself

No, i'm not confused at all, I just don't want anyone to think that the Yanks got involved for purely altruistic reasons.

So America shouldn't have helped in fighting the Jewish genocide?

Not in any way other than supplying arms to the allied nations. Too many Americans are buried on European soil. The number should have been zero.

So you're saying that there shouldn't be any American troops buried on any foreign soil?

No, specifically Europe due to combat casualties in WWII. The U.S. had no dog in that fight.

OK, so you think Britain would have been capable of fighting Germany singlehandedly? If not then the war on the continent would have continued, Africa would have fallen, as would Russia (eventually), what do you think would have happened after that?

I, personally, think that the Britain would have fought Germany to a stalemate, at least until 1942, and, possibly, until Germany developed the atomic bomb. Hitler and his poor decision making were his own worst enemies (for example, the reason why Germany lost the Battle of Britain).

Doubtful.

Not sure, but it sounds like an awesome premise for a Harry Turtledove novel.

Siera Leone between 2000 and 2002 and before that The Falklands War in 1982 and then all the post colonial conflicts (of which there are scores) between 1945 and 1990.

Don't know about Sierra Leone (may have been some non-combat assistance of which I am not aware) but wasn't there some non-combat US assistance to the UK in the Falklands War?

learn to read. The proposal was for sharia courts to operate in parallel to magistrates courts for civil cases such as divorce settlements and property disputes. It would be an option that apellants could consider as an alternative to the magistrates courts much as the current Beth Din courts do the same for Jewish people in England at present. Legitimising Beth Din for civil courts did not make Britain Jewish and nor will legitimzing sharia make us moslem. In any case, the proposal itself is NOT under consideration by the government. Sharia courst however do operate in Canada already.

Actually BtC, private security contractors played a very large part in the defeat of the militias in SL. None of them American though, AFAIK.

and other Un forces particularly from the AU but Operation Palliser put the British forces in the coordinating role to successfully end the conflict.

I think Cindy is a vote winner

Did anyone here about this?






Somehow I don't think this will pan out. I wonder how it would've, however, if it were Obama in this position

This is much ado about nothing, just like the babbling about Obama's birth certificate.

The parties have essentially the same agenda... their differences are not substantial in any way.
The whole the thing is a carefully orchestrated farce and designed to perpetuate the illusion of choice that stops the idiots from asking real questions...

Maybe that was not inline with the flow of the topic... just had to inject my weekly rant.

Cindy has the better hair.

As someone who likes to narrowly interpret the constitution, it is pretty clear that this is a big issue. Natural Born Citizen has had a defined traditional meaning for hundreds of years in this country, and I don’t appreciate the right wing agenda broadening this definition to suit their tastes. Surely, if the general populace had wanted a president born in Panama before 1937 they would have legislated it.

Extending such rights in this case means a natural and unlimited progression to all others. Allow McCain this status, and then any foreign born national could also have it. Why stop with people? Would you seriously want a Pakistani-born house cat to be the leader of the free world? This is what you are proposing. Sometimes minority groups have to sacrifice for the good of the general population, and so must Senator McCain.

Personally, I’m in favor of another sort of “Civil Servant� role for McCain, but we really should defend the definition of “Natural Born�

TFL, I guess you are just trying to bait me, but I don't think this is a real issue.

Here is an earlier NYT article on this issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html

thefirelane, that's just silly. Housecats don't live to be 35.


Now this is a legitimate question, if only because Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have very little competition in the way of far-left mainstream media outlets.

They do in dog years.

Sorry about interrupting the discussion on house pets, but an editorial by Obama is being featured in the NY Times today, if anyone's interested.

Oh, that'd be The Falklands War then.

So that's why you feel at home there. Why didn't you mention this before?
I ACTUALLY THOUGHT YOU WERE SOME SORT OF CHRISTIAN THINGY.

Have you seen the latest cover of the New Yorker magazine? Hillaryous!