It's to see whose ass Gordon Brown will kiss.
It's to see whose ass Gordon Brown will kiss.
So it's like the german show "Wetten, dass..."?
That makes him a left wing in the eyes of conservatives. Sure he doesn't agree in terms of war with the Democrats, but that doesn't automatically make him a right wing. Coming from a hard conservative community, something like that will make him left even though quite a few of his policies are actually right wing.
Working with Ted Kennedy has tainted him in the eyes of conservatives and that in itself will make him a "left" Republican. You have to keep in mind conservatives do not really like compromises and McCain compromises on liberal policies more often then he should
That's a very liberal view. In a right wing view more government spending will stimulate a government's economy.
Foreign Politics open? humble? honest? Since when? All this modern war trouble has started with the dishonestly and overzealousness of the First World War. It's been that way every since and it will always be that way. America is all about "spreading democracy" all over the world. Same way China wants the rest of the world to be communist. Our political attitude over the years have shifted from gun happy warlords to connving politicians who seek to undermine each other. But just because this shift is apparant doesn't mean the original motive of "conquoring another" is absent.
Morally decadent is the perfect word to describe politics. It's not who's doing wrong, it's who's going to get caught and so far no president has been stupid enough to leave bread crumps for legal infringement. You'll either have some hardcore war conservative nut who'll want to give democracy to every single country in the world through force or you'll have some soft liberal yes man who'll try to please everyone even the dictators like Ahmadinijad
That's a fair point.
Maybe I'll suggest that our local council elections should get a snazzy prefix next time. "Splendid Wednesday" sounds good.
It depends what sort of liberal. Economically liberal (I.E. free market) and socially liberal (I.E. reproductive rights, human rights, freedom of/from religion etc.)
I think Lateralus is talking about social policy. All three of the Republicans with anything remotely approaching a chance (Romney, McCain and Hickabee) are social conservatives. In order, Romney wants to remove women's rights, not bring in gay rights, wants to force his moral standards on others and condones torture, just dressed ... der torture is unreliable.
I'm picking on Romney but the others are quite frankly the same.,
It is.
System's broken.
Tear it down, build it anew.
I just don't understand why does the campaign lasts so long, i thought that you will get a new president like in march or april, but it's not till january 2009? 
(was it always like that?)
God knows how much money is wasted on those campaigns..
(was it always like that?) God knows how much money is wasted on those campaigns..
They gotta do SOMETHING
Oh dear, if 20 states votes in one day aren't they running states in this pace?
Or is there something like 30 rounds in it?
Very odd indeed, must be also very inefficient and expensive, I fail to see how it could take over a month.
Feels bit like those modern tv series, artificially they add length to every episode so that what you got in one at old times you need to see whole season
Well, hard to find efficient politics anywhere.
The whole idea of the US elections is to let the plebs feel as if they have democracy, draw it out for ages and people think it means something.
Obama is left wing ?????
"Obama's main overall image adviser and foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and the mastermind of the disastrous Carter administration. Obama's wife Michelle is reputed to be closely linked to the Council on Foreign Relations. "
This must be some new meaning of the words 'left wing'
There is effectivly NO difference between any of the candidates, like in Russia under communism you can vote for anyone you like, provided their party members.........
Most countries at least manage a semblence of democracy but the US seem's more and more like a dictatorship with each election.
There you go DWB, how was that.
Obama is left wing ?????
"Obama's main overall image adviser and foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and the mastermind of the disastrous Carter administration. Obama's wife Michelle is reputed to be closely linked to the Council on Foreign Relations. "
This must be some new meaning of the words 'left wing'
There is effectivly NO difference between any of the candidates, like in Russia under communism you can vote for anyone you like, provided their party members.........
Most countries at least manage a semblence of democracy but the US seem's more and more like a dictatorship with each election.
There you go DWB, how was that.
Good, good. But I feel you can do better.
OK, lets take a look at the other 'left wing' candidate, Hillary. See if you can spot the similarities with Obama.
"...Hillary will be good for America... we'll be very pleased that she's president." -- Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Portfolio magazine, October 5, 2007
While President Bush's approval rating falls to record lows, the torch is being prepared to pass on to Hillary Clinton, with full endorsement from the global elite. With support from European nobility, Clinton has been selected as the candidate of choice for the continuation of globalist policies. Bill Clinton, being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, as well as the secretive Bilderberg group, was the creme de la creme establishment candidate. His wife, Hillary, who likely attended the 2006 Bilderberg conference in Ottawa Canada, now promises to follow in his path.
Writing in the Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton outlines her agenda if elected president. Iran is in Clinton's sights, along with regional government, and likely support of the North American Union - and possibly a Pan-American union - with a "policy of vigorous engagement" with Latin America.
Regarding Iran, Clinton echoes the rhetoric coming from President Bush and the Neo-cons,
OK, we have both 'left' candidates being supported openly by the Trilateral Commission, which is I believe a somewhat rightwing group. Same with the Bilderberg group supporting both. Both also have a close relationship with the Council of Foreign Relations. ( Well worth a google )
So America, do you want a woman or a black dude cus the only choice is the window dressing.
Both 'left' candidates seem to me to be rightwing extremists supporting the current neocon values.
Mind you, as in Communist Russia, the best way to win an election is to control all the candidates, that way you cant lose.
Especially if you control the voting machines as well.
Thats American democracy for you.
"...Hillary will be good for America... we'll be very pleased that she's president." -- Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Portfolio magazine, October 5, 2007
While President Bush's approval rating falls to record lows, the torch is being prepared to pass on to Hillary Clinton, with full endorsement from the global elite. With support from European nobility, Clinton has been selected as the candidate of choice for the continuation of globalist policies. Bill Clinton, being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, as well as the secretive Bilderberg group, was the creme de la creme establishment candidate. His wife, Hillary, who likely attended the 2006 Bilderberg conference in Ottawa Canada, now promises to follow in his path.
Writing in the Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton outlines her agenda if elected president. Iran is in Clinton's sights, along with regional government, and likely support of the North American Union - and possibly a Pan-American union - with a "policy of vigorous engagement" with Latin America.
Regarding Iran, Clinton echoes the rhetoric coming from President Bush and the Neo-cons,
"Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table."Clinton's "vigorous engagement" stance toward Latin America would make North American integration proponent Robert Pastor and the CFR proud. Regional government, as well as regional currencies have been a long term goal of Bilderberg globalists and the Council on Foreign Relations. Clinton, if elected president would pursue further integration of Africa into the African Union,
"We should target these countries for aid and other forms of support and work with them to strengthen regional institutions such as the African Union. The AU seeks to emulate the European Union by requiring and supporting democracy among its members..."Hillary Clinton congratulated Walter Cronkite in 1999 for his global governance award, given to him by the World Federalist Association for his support for a system of world government. "For decades you've told us the way it is, and tonight we honor you for fighting for the way it could be," said Clinton.
OK, we have both 'left' candidates being supported openly by the Trilateral Commission, which is I believe a somewhat rightwing group. Same with the Bilderberg group supporting both. Both also have a close relationship with the Council of Foreign Relations. ( Well worth a google )
So America, do you want a woman or a black dude cus the only choice is the window dressing.
Both 'left' candidates seem to me to be rightwing extremists supporting the current neocon values.
Mind you, as in Communist Russia, the best way to win an election is to control all the candidates, that way you cant lose.
Especially if you control the voting machines as well.
Thats American democracy for you.
I think the election should be replaced with a Basketball Game, so then the one I want to win will.
Actually I was hoping for a blind homosexual in a wheel chair.
As my wife says, we should look to see which criminal chooses who to be a vice presidential running mate, because whichever one gets elected, they're probably gonna get assassinated and we should choose the candidate that picks the best vice-president in case that happens.
You know, Charles Manson get a few votes as a write in candidate every election year. ...What if? LOL "THEN you foriegners would STFU"
The more I think about it, the Republicans actually stand a chance now. The Democratic campaign is very charged right now and I think that more than a few supporters of either candidate will be disgruntled and not support the other candidate should they get the nomination. That's just the popular vote, but I think it could be enough to affect the electoral vote - maybe.
I dunno though, it IS McCain... Conservative republicans can't stand him and liberals don't trust him....
Given the choice between any of the current candidates or Charles Manson my vote would go to Manson. At least he's certified insane.
And he killed a damned sight less people than any other US president.
Georgy is up to about a million Iraqi's and 3,952 US troops, not counting mercenaries so far and thats not counting the damage to come from DU weapons. Or Afghanistan. Hell, Manson is the sane choice, almost pro-life.
Actually, on reflection after reading the posts I strongly feel that Lerts offers the US the best choice.
Go on dude.
And he killed a damned sight less people than any other US president.
Georgy is up to about a million Iraqi's and 3,952 US troops, not counting mercenaries so far and thats not counting the damage to come from DU weapons. Or Afghanistan. Hell, Manson is the sane choice, almost pro-life.
Actually, on reflection after reading the posts I strongly feel that Lerts offers the US the best choice.
Go on dude.
Exit polls on Tuesday indicated that 70+ percent of Dem voters would be pleased with either candidate as president, though of course there are rabid fans of each. I think the overall base will be pretty united when it comes time to vote in November, though.
After extensive research I've finally come up with a clear explanation for American politics. And it's a Scientific America article !
Mental Illness in America
More than a quarter of adults are afflicted
By Peter Sergo
n any given year 26 percent of American adults suffer from mental disorders, based on guidelines in the official handbook for diagnosing mental illness, the DSM-IV. Only about a fifth of the cases are serious enough to cause a major disruption of everyday life, however, which has prompted some experts to call for more stringent diagnostic criteria. Others counter that tracking mild symptoms is important for preventing their escalation into more severe illness. The chart below lists many of the most prevalent mental illnesses in Americans older than 18 years, according to a 2005 survey by the National Institute of Mental Health. Nearly half of all people who have one illness also suffer from at least one more.
http://www.sciam.com/article.c ... mental-illness-in-america
Mental Illness in America
More than a quarter of adults are afflicted
By Peter Sergo
n any given year 26 percent of American adults suffer from mental disorders, based on guidelines in the official handbook for diagnosing mental illness, the DSM-IV. Only about a fifth of the cases are serious enough to cause a major disruption of everyday life, however, which has prompted some experts to call for more stringent diagnostic criteria. Others counter that tracking mild symptoms is important for preventing their escalation into more severe illness. The chart below lists many of the most prevalent mental illnesses in Americans older than 18 years, according to a 2005 survey by the National Institute of Mental Health. Nearly half of all people who have one illness also suffer from at least one more.
http://www.sciam.com/article.c ... mental-illness-in-america
To be honest though, it would be good for all Americans who still believe in the constitution and the founding beliefs of America to read and think about the following article to see just where your country is going.
http://www.opednews.com/articl ... _the_year_of_living_d.htm
If you are not angered, indeed enraged, by the current state of the United States, then you have not been paying attention, or you just do not care enough about the future your children will inherit, and have to live in. If you are not alarmed at where, at present, this course is invariably taking us, then you have abandoned the responsibilities of an informed citizen, preferring the comfortable warmth of ignorance to the absolute frigidity of a most ominous reality.
Indeed, it has been our passivity and acquiescence, bred of comfort, distraction and the erosion of critical thinking, that has facilitated our decent into authoritarian and corporatist waters. It has been our indifference and our “can’t happen here” mentality that is inevitably guaranteeing that it does, in fact, “happen here.” It is our inexperience with tyranny at home and our lack of exposure to authoritarian tendencies such as surveillance, secret police, torture, spying and disappearances, prevalent in many American supported states, encouraged by our government, though until recently non-existent here, that subjects us to a methodical assault by Machiavellian ideologies.
What billions of humans have first-hand experience in, oftentimes thanks to our government’s sponsorship, funding, training, backing, protection and encouragement, we have not yet fully been subjected to. The dirty little secret that the people outside our borders understand fully, and which has been kept from us, is the principle that if America wishes to maintain its empire, it must then continue acting like an empire. This, of course, means maintaining a firm grip over its vassal states, by proxy through its puppets, using the methods any aspiring empire must use, namely tyranny, oppression, and repression along with the tools at the disposal of any credentialed authoritarian.
http://www.opednews.com/articl ... _the_year_of_living_d.htm
If you are not angered, indeed enraged, by the current state of the United States, then you have not been paying attention, or you just do not care enough about the future your children will inherit, and have to live in. If you are not alarmed at where, at present, this course is invariably taking us, then you have abandoned the responsibilities of an informed citizen, preferring the comfortable warmth of ignorance to the absolute frigidity of a most ominous reality.
Indeed, it has been our passivity and acquiescence, bred of comfort, distraction and the erosion of critical thinking, that has facilitated our decent into authoritarian and corporatist waters. It has been our indifference and our “can’t happen here” mentality that is inevitably guaranteeing that it does, in fact, “happen here.” It is our inexperience with tyranny at home and our lack of exposure to authoritarian tendencies such as surveillance, secret police, torture, spying and disappearances, prevalent in many American supported states, encouraged by our government, though until recently non-existent here, that subjects us to a methodical assault by Machiavellian ideologies.
What billions of humans have first-hand experience in, oftentimes thanks to our government’s sponsorship, funding, training, backing, protection and encouragement, we have not yet fully been subjected to. The dirty little secret that the people outside our borders understand fully, and which has been kept from us, is the principle that if America wishes to maintain its empire, it must then continue acting like an empire. This, of course, means maintaining a firm grip over its vassal states, by proxy through its puppets, using the methods any aspiring empire must use, namely tyranny, oppression, and repression along with the tools at the disposal of any credentialed authoritarian.
Obama takes Washington, Maine, Nebraska and Louisiana this weekend, all by >10%.
Someone here said that Obama just says what people want to hear (as compared to Hillary). That makes little sense.
In one debate when asked about illegal immigration taking American jobs Obama had the courage to call it scapegoating. It would have been much easier to play to the fear of foreigners taking jobs angle but he didn't. I'm sorry but if illegal mexican aliens are taking your job then you really need to aim higher than dishwasher, delivery boy, and handy man.
Hillary says she'll start pulling troops out 60 days after she's in office. As retired General Powel commented, where does she get that number? What makes 60 days magical?
Obama on the other hand said he would set a date for withdrawl (16 months) to motivate the Iraqi government to prepare but he didn't say he would just start plucking troops out immediately like Hillary.
I'm sorry but Hillary's judgment is very suspect.
Plus Hillary voted for this war that she's complaining about. Obama voted against it and very clearly stated why he was against it and everything he said came to pass.
Obama's taken no special interest money. He's campaign is publicly funded. Hillary has taken more special interest money than McCain. It's easier to believe some who isn't getting paid by special interests.
Obama has that elusive leadership quality. In a room full of people who would you follow Obama or Hillary?
McCain will go down in flames in the general election once everyone watches this video of him singing "bomb bomb Iran."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
President McCain? "Bomb, bomb, Iran." God help us all.
In one debate when asked about illegal immigration taking American jobs Obama had the courage to call it scapegoating. It would have been much easier to play to the fear of foreigners taking jobs angle but he didn't. I'm sorry but if illegal mexican aliens are taking your job then you really need to aim higher than dishwasher, delivery boy, and handy man.
Hillary says she'll start pulling troops out 60 days after she's in office. As retired General Powel commented, where does she get that number? What makes 60 days magical?
Obama on the other hand said he would set a date for withdrawl (16 months) to motivate the Iraqi government to prepare but he didn't say he would just start plucking troops out immediately like Hillary.
I'm sorry but Hillary's judgment is very suspect.
Plus Hillary voted for this war that she's complaining about. Obama voted against it and very clearly stated why he was against it and everything he said came to pass.
Obama's taken no special interest money. He's campaign is publicly funded. Hillary has taken more special interest money than McCain. It's easier to believe some who isn't getting paid by special interests.
Obama has that elusive leadership quality. In a room full of people who would you follow Obama or Hillary?
McCain will go down in flames in the general election once everyone watches this video of him singing "bomb bomb Iran."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
President McCain? "Bomb, bomb, Iran." God help us all.
@Deadwolf: read this http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5533287.html
"Someone here said that Obama just says what people want to hear (as compared to Hillary). That makes little sense."
LOL of course it don't! name a successful politician that doesn't.
"In one debate when asked about illegal immigration taking American jobs Obama had the courage to call it scapegoating. It would have been much easier to play to the fear of foreigners taking jobs angle but he didn't. I'm sorry but if illegal mexican aliens are taking your job then you really need to aim higher than dishwasher, delivery boy, and handy man."
You know, welding, residential carpentry and skilled fabrication USED to be good paying jobs... til about the mid 90's... So when will illegal immigration be unacceptable then? When it's cargo holds in ships full of people suffocating and the jobs being taken are doctors, engineers and bankers?
" Obama has that elusive leadership quality. In a room full of people who would you follow Obama or Hillary?"
Depends. What's in it for me?
"McCain will go down in flames in the general election once everyone watches this video of him singing "bomb bomb Iran."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
President McCain? "Bomb, bomb, Iran." God help us all."
Please... if this is all the mud that gets thrown on McCrook, then he's as good as in. In fact, the impending Mud duel between Obama and Hillary might also be a negative factor against both of them when undecideds compare them to McCain.
You know, this presidential election strongly resembles this years football season. Mc Cain is New England and Clinton and Obama are
New York and Green Bay. Which one is Green bay, I don't know but it looks that way.
Racer Y, as much as you often disagree with me ( don't worry, I'm over it
) you really need to catch up with the concept of American union.
The Mexicans are your brother Americans, along with Canadians ( sure to thrill them ) and your all part of the NEW America.
No such thing as illegal immigrants any more cus your all part of one happy family.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind ... itle=North_American_Union
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ... icle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52684
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
Sorry if your govt hasn't actually explained this to you yet but I'm sure they will, sooner or later.
Maybe they thought that a few of you might object to the idea.
North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA
Jerome R. Corsi | May 30, 2006
In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.
SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew
) you really need to catch up with the concept of American union.The Mexicans are your brother Americans, along with Canadians ( sure to thrill them ) and your all part of the NEW America.
No such thing as illegal immigrants any more cus your all part of one happy family.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind ... itle=North_American_Union
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ... icle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52684
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/
Sorry if your govt hasn't actually explained this to you yet but I'm sure they will, sooner or later.
Maybe they thought that a few of you might object to the idea.
North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA
Jerome R. Corsi | May 30, 2006
In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.
SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew
LOL you forgot about the peso-dollar
.You know what all that's about right? It's a big dog and pony show to portray the three countries as "striving for unity". Basically a photo op that got misread by the 2012 build a burger types.
But on the serious side, what's really being done with this is to create an economic model based on what the EU could do. But I don't see it happening. Like the "trans-Texas Corridor" that's going to be built that no one wants, but is being built anyways. The road isn't being done as some sort of Big Brother/Evil Empire thing. No, just because it's a big cash cow and good ol'fashioned pork barrel politics.
Once politically motivated judges & politicians, upset that they ain't getting a piece of the pie "side with the people", that'll stop and some other barrel of pork will be opened up.
Hey we do agree on something!
I'm not too thrilled with any of the presidential offerings either (we need someone like Sarkozy - at least he scores hot chicks
)Personally, I like Obama out of the three, but i'd also prefer to be lethally injected as opposed to the chair or hanging so that ain't saying much
LOL I just thought of something... Don't you ride a Moto Guzzi? ROFL! even your "V" leans to the left
I'm riding in weather just above freezing tomorrow... WHOO HOO!!!
Obama wins Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C.
He's got the momentum and the lead in delegates.
It looks like it's going to be Warmonger vs. Hopemonger.
He's got the momentum and the lead in delegates.
It looks like it's going to be Warmonger vs. Hopemonger.
US Elections: Super Tuesday Free-For-All Extravaganza!!!11!!1!
(73 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG