As a US resident and voter who has decided to vote for Obama I have to say nevertheless that all the hysteria surrounding Sarah Palin's "lack of foreign policy experience and lack of any other experience " is just a load of election tripe

<snip>

Barack Obama has no real foreign policy experience. He is a senator from Illinois. He made a trip to Iraq to meet with general Petraeous the US military commander and also a short trip to Europe on a meet and greet tour but that was about it. His lack of experience shouldn't stop him from being a possible two term president if elected

Barack did have the sense to see that war against Iraq was a foolish idea right from the start.


So what's the big deal about Palin's lack of experience? She appears to be smart enough to one day be president given the chance to gain the experience.

She doesn't just lack experience. She has objectionable views like disbanding abortion rights even for rape victims and in cases of incest. Ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin)

I don't think it is tripe, the main critisim levelled at Palin is her lack of any deep understanding of the current issues of the day.
It seems fairly clear from her CBS interviews that Palin hasn't really had any interest in National or world affairs ,and has little interest in seeing the rest of the world or even seeing how America is viewed from other countries or interested in understanding other peoples and thier cultures.
That is patently clear by her only obtaining her first passport just last year.
A person who has no real previous interest in world affairs really has no business running for high office.

If you base your opinions on CBS interviews then be aware that their political biases lie with the Democrats just as Fox News lies with the Republicans. Like all politically biased media sources they will try to present a political candidate in either a positive or negative light according to their political persuasion. I dont trust CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or Fox completely. One has to try to assume that a semblance of the truth lies somewhere down the middle.

As for her not having a passport. So what? I wonder how many past US presidents had passports before they took office

Has she actually categorically stated that she has no interest in world affairs or is this merely an assumption arrived at by CBS

I'm just trying to be fair to the woman

As a US resident and voter who has decided to vote for Obama

I hope he repays the faith you and other Americans have placed in him, if he's elected :)

I hope he repays the faith you and other Americans have placed in him, if he's elected :)

Time will tell boyfriday ;)

Barack did have the sense to see that war against Iraq was a foolish idea right from the start.



She doesn't just lack experience. She has objectionable views like disbanding abortion rights even for rape victims and in cases of incest. Ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin)

Millions of others in the US including many senators and congressmen and women also saw the idea of a war with Iraq as foolish.

Her views on abortion dont really matter one way or another. The right of women in this country to have an abortion are here to stay beyond a doubt.

If you base your opinions on CBS interviews then be aware that their political biases lie with the Democrats just as Fox News lies with the Republicans. Like all politically biased media sources they will try to present a political candidate in either a positive or negative light according to their political persuasion. I dont trust CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN or Fox completely. One has to try to assume that a semblance of the truth lies somewhere down the middle.

As for her not having a passport. So what? I wonder how many past US presidents had passports before they took office

Has she actually categorically stated that she has no interested in world affairs or is this merely an assumption arrived at by CBS

I'm just trying to be fair to the woman

I don't agree, just listening to Palin's lack of understanding of the actual questions posed is enough for anyone to realise that Palin is out of her depth.

Have you actually watched the Katie Couric interview?

Turn the sound of the interviewer and commentory off if you like, it doesn't make a jot of difference, her answers are cringeworthy.
Anyone with half a brain can deduce that this women isn't really interested in world affairs,all you need to do is listen to what she says.

As for passports, I'd wager that in the age of the airliner most presidents have held a passport if only to visit Canada or Mexico.

Her views on abortion dont really matter one way or another. The right of women in this country to have an abortion are here to stay beyond a doubt.

What do you base that on?

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.


http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

Just quoting John McCain here.

3 supream court judges will be nominated by the next presidency and its already stacked with the codeword "strict constitutionalist" which is a very loud dog whistle for judges who will ban abortion.

As for passports, I'd wager that in the age of the airliner most presidents have held a passport if only to visit Canada or Mexico.

that shows how much you know about the United States. Until recently, Americans didn't need passports to visit either of those countries. In fact, Americans still don't need passports to travel to Canada by land or by boat, only by air.

As for passports, I'd wager that in the age of the airliner most presidents have held a passport if only to visit Canada or Mexico.

that shows how much you know about the United States. Until recently, Americans didn't need passports to visit either of those countries. In fact, Americans still don't need passports to travel to Canada by land or by boat, only by air.

That doesn't change a whole lot, so what if you didn't need a passport to travel to Mexico or Canada by air before a year or two ago.

The fundamental point is that Palin, is probably far less travelled, than most who have previously been put in this postion in the age of the airliner.

even if Palin has visited fewer countries than any of the the past dozen VP candidates, that won't lose McCain any votes. After all comparitively few Americans leave the American continent in their lives. I don't think even Clinton, who got a foreign education, left the American continent at all in the period between when he got back from Oxford and when he became President 20 years later.

even if Palin has visited fewer countries than any of the the past dozen VP candidates, that won't lose McCain any votes. After all comparitively few Americans leave the American continent in their lives. I don't think even Clinton, who got a foreign education, left the American continent at all in the period between when he got back from Oxford and when he became President 20 years later.

But at least Clinton studied in Oxford,giving Clinton some experience of what it's like to live outside America, and therefore get a first hand perspective on how America and Americans are percieved outside America and that counts for something.

Palin has no such experience.

even if Palin has visited fewer countries than any of the the past dozen VP candidates, that won't lose McCain any votes. After all comparitively few Americans leave the American continent in their lives. I don't think even Clinton, who got a foreign education, left the American continent at all in the period between when he got back from Oxford and when he became President 20 years later.
Her not leaving the country is simply an indication of her ignorance of the world and even worse just how content she is with that ignorance as for example is the fact that she couldn't even name a single current affairs newspaper or magazine that she reads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y) when asked a few days ago.

Not only does she lack experience and intelligence but possibly most worryingly of all she seems perfectly content in her ignorance even when pushing to be a heart beat from the presidency and pathetically whines that any questions that expose her ignorance are 'gotcha journalism' even when those questions come from members of the public (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNHgJH2680).

Incidentally how pathetic is it that Palin is so incompetent that even when faced with about as soft an interviewer as there is she now needs a chaperone.

being a Rhodes scholar did expand Clinton's horizons a great deal. But if you've read his memoirs, it's obvious he didn't really have too much of a clue about the UK and Europe when he was there. Of course, after he became President he went everywhere in the world. His best experience was being Governor of Arkansas, a state not all that much smaller - and arguably less significant than Alaska. Palin is the only one of the four people on the ticket with any executive experience at all, and that hardly amounts to anything. Like I said before, this ticket is the worst ever.

The last thing the world needs at this dangerous time is Obama in the white house,he has no experience of dealing with a crisis like Mcain has.
He reminds me of Cameron and Blair all spin and no substance,he is a flip flopper as they say in the states.
On the subject of 'flip flops' McCain set a new high mark for these the other night with this little gem:

Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/10/01/jon-stewart-blasts-mccains-leadership-house-gops-delicate-sensibilities/)

It would seem that McCain is no longer satisfied with flatly contradicting previous positions of his over years, months, weeks or even days he now does so from one sentence to the next.

Incidentally how pathetic is it that Palin is so incompetent that even when faced with about as soft an interviewer as there is she now needs a chaperone.

Could you imagine her on Newsnight being interviewed by Mr.Paxman!

He wouldn't have let her get away with her non specific newspaper answer!;)

Could you imagine her on Newsnight being interviewed by Mr.Paxman!

He wouldn't have let her get away with her non specific newspaper answer!;)
Given her abject performance with one of the softest interviewers it possible to imagine I think it is safe to say we'll never get the pleasure seeing the likes of Paxman tear her apart, her party handlers aren't dumb enough to let that happen.

Her inability to give a straight answer to even such an innocuous and simple question just boggles the mind. It's not as if the interviewer was trying to pin her down on a contentious or complicated issue of policy or anything.

What do you base that on?



http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

Just quoting John McCain here.

3 supream court judges will be nominated by the next presidency and its already stacked with the codeword "strict constitutionalist" which is a very loud dog whistle for judges who will ban abortion.

If George Bush a sworn enemy of abortion couldn't overturn Roe vs Wade then McCain stands no chance whatsoever no matter what he says to please the advocates of the right to life group. He's just spouting off election rhetoric.

The whole issue is too divisive in this country and all it would is open up a Pandora's box. The last thing this country needs these days.

Even if by some remote chance that Roe vs Wade were to be overturned it would just drive the practice of abortion underground. A return to the back street abortionist and who needs that.

If George Bush couldn't overturn Roe vs Wade then McCain stands no chance whatsoever no matter what he says to please the advocates of the right to life group. He's just spouting off election rhetoric.

The whole issue is too divisive in this country and all it would is open up a Pandora's box. The last thing this country needs these days.
Why not? All it would take is another conservative appointment to the supreme court.

What do you think the chances of McCain & Palin who've both declared their intention of overturning Roe vs Wade from appointing a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice are?

even if Palin has visited fewer countries than any of the the past dozen VP candidates, that won't lose McCain any votes. After all comparitively few Americans leave the American continent in their lives. I don't think even Clinton, who got a foreign education, left the American continent at all in the period between when he got back from Oxford and when he became President 20 years later.

You cant condemn Palin for not travelling outside America. Her life and occupation did not require her to travel overseas. Being a governor of a state requires just that and does not entail jet setting all over the place at the tax payers expense. She was fiscally responsible enough when she took office as governor to auction off the aircraft used by the previous governor.

Why not? All it would take is another conservative appointment to the supreme court.

What do you think the chances of McCain & Palin who've both declared their intention of overturning Roe vs Wade from appointing a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice are?

Again I would have to say that this is just hot air to appease the far right conservatives who seem to think that McCain is not conservative enough.

Dont forget too that a prospective supreme court justice has to be approved by the government which involves a lot of hearings and many prospective justices in the past have never got past that hurdle.

It's a long way from being nominated to being seated

You cant condemn Palin for not travelling outside America. Her life and occupation did not require her to travel overseas. Being a governor of a state requires just that and does not entail jet setting all over the place at the tax payers expense. She was fiscally responsible enough when she took office as governor to auction off the aircraft used by the previous governor.

I think we will see a big change in this Country at the next general election. I see a Conservatine government being elected. I also see McCain getting elected, so I sleep well at night knowing this.

You are trying to battle a few and dying socialists on here. Its about time to stop banging your head against a brick wall and accept that these socialists will soon have the tables turned on them for the better and it can't come too soon.

Goodbye to health and safety and human rights nonsense that have run our lives for the last 11yrs under this rubbish government and the nanny state they created to boot, hello to self responsibility and advancement through education and hard work. Socialism has been proven to be too expensive to ever work.

You cant condemn Palin for not travelling outside America. Her life and occupation did not require her to travel overseas. Being a governor of a state requires just that and does not entail jet setting all over the place at the tax payers expense. She was fiscally responsible enough when she took office as governor to auction off the aircraft used by the previous governor.

Palin says she's gained her world view from books.

The Bible is probably one of these books, and CS Lewis is one of her favourite authors!:gag:

I think we will see a big change in this Country at the next general election. I see a Conservatine government being elected. I also see McCain getting elected, so I sleep well at night knowing this.

Which is why you're on here... right now... posting away :)

Palin says she's gained her worldview from books.

The Bible is probably one of these books and CS Lewis is one of her favorite authors!:gag:

She will still end up as No:2 though. Where did Bliar go to before he became PM?

You cant condemn Palin for not travelling outside America.
You can certainly condemn her for being a ignorant buffoon who's utterly content to remain ignorant whilst thinking she should hold high office.

Her life and occupation did not require her to travel overseas. Being a governor of a state requires just that and does not entail jet setting all over the place at the tax payers expense. She was fiscally responsible enough when she took office as governor to auction off the aircraft used by the previous governor.
Except of course she didn't, as with her claims to have said 'thanks but no thanks' to the bridge to no where that's just another lie (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/gov_sarah_palins_ebay_plane_cl.html).

As for her being 'fiscally responsible':

Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html)

Which is why you're on here... right now... posting away :)

I can sleep in the day. ;)

You can certainly condemn her for being a ignorant buffoon who's utterly content to remain ignorant whilst thinking she should hold high office.


Except of course she didn't, as with her claims to have said 'thanks but no thanks' to the bridge to no where that's just another lie (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/gov_sarah_palins_ebay_plane_cl.html).

As for her being 'fiscally responsible':

Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html)

Would you really want to see the democrats in power?

She will still end up as No:2 though.

Let's hope for the sake of the rest of humanity she doesn't!

Although if McCain is elected, I'm sure there will be huge pressure for Palin to stand down.

Let's hope for the sake of the rest of humanity she doesn't!

Although if McCain is elected, I'm sure there will be huge pressure for Palin to stand down.

How do you work that out?

You are trying to battle a few and dying socialists on here. Its about time to stop banging your head against a brick wall and accept that these socialists will soon have the tables turned on them for the better and it can't come too soon.

Goodbye to health and safety and human rights nonsense that have run our lives for the last 11yrs under this rubbish government and the nanny state they created to boot, hello to self responsibility and advancement through education and hard work. Socialism has been proven to be too expensive to ever work.
..thanks albeit, that little diatribe helped me remember what a wonderful job the Republicans had done for the US and the world over the last 8 years.

How do you work that out?

Because there are already growing calls amongst influential republican voices for Palin to step down.

McCain will be loathe for her to do that,so close to the election, but after the votes have been cast, should he make it to office, McCain might just want to get shot of her.

Because there are already growing calls amongst influential republican voices for Palin to step down.

McCain will be loathe for her to do that,so close to the election, but after the votes have been cast, should he make it to office, McCain might just want to get shot of her.

I can't see that after asking her to be his No:2 and so many in the republican party backing her.

She has brought business into politics and she is an asset to the party no-matter how the press paint her or a few dissident republicans.

Again I would have to say that this is just hot air to appease the far right conservatives who seem to think that McCain is not conservative enough.

Dont forget too that a prospective supreme court justice has to be approved by the government which involves a lot of hearings and many prospective justices in the past have never got past that hurdle.

It's a long way from being nominated to being seated
And when Bush appointed hard line anti choice justices Roberts and Alito was that just 'hot air' as well?

If McCain and Palin appointed a single pro-choice justice the religious right would abandon the Republicans in both Presidential and Congessional elections do you really think they'd risk that?

I think we will see a big change in this Country at the next general election. I see a Conservatine government being elected. I also see McCain getting elected, so I sleep well at night knowing this.

You are trying to battle a few and dying socialists on here. Its about time to stop banging your head against a brick wall and accept that these socialists will soon have the tables turned on them for the better and it can't come too soon.
:huh: Which socialists are these?

Goodbye to health and safety and human rights nonsense that have run our lives for the last 11yrs under this rubbish government and the nanny state they created to boot, hello to self responsibility and advancement through education and hard work. Socialism has been proven to be too expensive to ever work.
Yeah because what we obviously need is yet more deregulated corporatism which McCain ceaselessly champions because that works so well and hasn't proven in the least bit expensive :loopy:

Would you really want to see the democrats in power?
Not especially but I'd certainly prefer them to Bush 2.1 and his idiot companion.

She has brought business into politics
:huh: what's that even supposed to mean?

and she is an asset to the party no-matter how the press paint her or a few dissident republicans.
It's got nothing to do with the 'press painting her' as anything, she painted herself as an ignorant and incoherent buffoon in her interviews, she went up on stage to get blessed by a witch hunter herself 'the press' had nothing to do with it, she consistently lies about opposing earmarks whilst in reality hiring a lobbyist to seek them not 'the press'...

And when Bush appointed hard line anti choice justices Roberts and Alito was that just 'hot air' as well?

If McCain and Palin appointed a single pro-choice justice the religious right would abandon the Republicans in both Presidential and Congessional elections do you really think they'd risk that?

So who would the religious right vote for if they abandoned the Republicans?

:huh: Which socialists are these?

The same type of socialist like Obama who thinks he has the answers to a Countries problems that we have in power now. What else did you think I meant? You take your own user name from a failed socialist leader.

Yeah because what we obviously need is yet more deregulated corporatism which McCain ceaselessly champions because that works so well and hasn't proven in the least bit expensive :loopy:

Not really. We need to allow private business to flourish, government don't create jobs, private enterprise does and whilst we need to reign the necks in of the banking sector, private business is where the growth comes from and I have seen my business undergo many drastic changes this last year in taxation and council tax and many other health and safety acts that cost me money and others their jobs. We live in this ever changing set of rules that don't allow us to open our wings and its getting pretty damn frustrating.

Not especially but I'd certainly prefer them to Bush 2.1 and his idiot companion.

I am wrestling with the fact should I shut down and go freelance on my own. I would rather McCain and Palin or Cameron to lead the economies than this Muppet Brown any day as he instills absolutely no confidence in me.

I think we will see a big change in this Country at the next general election. I see a Conservatine government being elected. I also see McCain getting elected, so I sleep well at night knowing this.

You are trying to battle a few and dying socialists on here. Its about time to stop banging your head against a brick wall and accept that these socialists will soon have the tables turned on them for the better and it can't come too soon.

Goodbye to health and safety and human rights nonsense that have run our lives for the last 11yrs under this rubbish government and the nanny state they created to boot, hello to self responsibility and advancement through education and hard work. Socialism has been proven to be too expensive to ever work.

The administration we've had here for the past eight years could be classified as a rubbish government.

Billions squandered in Iraq. Thousands maimed and killed. The hurricane Katrina debacle. The middle class being slowly squeezed out of existence

Yes, we need a change alright and that's why I'm voting for Obama this time around

I've voted Republican in the past but I wouldn't give them the time of day now

That said I still believe that Palin is not being treated fairly by the media and I was trying to make a point there.

So who would the religious right vote for if they abandoned the Republicans?
Unless the religious right unseated enough corporate republicans in primaries and so forth to seize the party after such an obvious kick in the teeth I expect they'd set up a splinter party most likely along the populist lines of Huckabee.

The same type of socialist like Obama who thinks he has the answers to a Countries problems that we have in power now. What else did you think I meant? You take your own user name from a failed socialist leader.
By what possible definition is Obama a socialist? He's not even a Social Democrat.

Not really. We need to allow private business to flourish, government don't create jobs, private enterprise does and whilst we need to reign the necks in of the banking sector, private business is where the growth comes from and I have seen my business undergo many drastic changes this last year in taxation and council tax and many other health and safety acts that cost me money and others their jobs. We live in this ever changing set of rules that don't allow us to open our wings and its getting pretty damn frustrating.
How unsurprising empty free market talking points spewed forth in a manner Sarah Palin would be proud of.

McCain has long been a champion of the exact kind of corporate driven deregulation which got us into the current mess, as are his economic advisors to a man tools of big business seeking to use the state to distort the market place to further their own interests in the exact manner Adam Smith warned of.

I am wrestling with the fact should I shut down and go freelance on my own. I would rather McCain and Palin or Cameron to lead the economies than this Muppet Brown any day as he instills absolutely no confidence in me.
And McCain the guy who just a few days ago was claiming that ‘the fundamentals of the economy are strong’ does instil you with confidence? Palin a woman who left a town of 6000 $20million in debt instils you with confidence :loopy:

Incidentally your equation is Cameron with McCain and Palin is just hilarious, don’t you realise that US politics is so skewed to the right that even the Democrats and Obama are to the right of the Tories.

The administration we've had here for the past eight years could be classified as a rubbish government.

Billions squandered in Iraq. Thousands maimed and killed. The hurricane Katrina debacle. The middle class being slowly squeezed out of existence

Yes, we need a change alright and that's why I'm voting for Obama this time around

I've voted Republican in the past but I wouldn't give them the time of day now

That said I still believe that Palin is not being treated fairly by the media and I was trying to make a point there.

That's fine my friend and your vote is up to you to do with it what you want. To me, it would be like voting for a NU *new* Labour. To put your Country into the hands of socialists for even the short term would be the undoing of you and your kinfolk. You will only ever know after time. I happen to think that Palin is vibrant and whilst she may not come across well as the press there paint her in a bad light, She has teeth.

Obama is a soft, lefty/liberal twit that will create the divisions in your Country that we see here now. Multiculturalism will be the way forward and the Mexicans will run riot over your border, so don't be surprised that after you lot laughing at us for so long and calling us Englandistan that you voted in the same policy for yourselves.

Lets see how it goes for you if you get your own way.

A British Conservative government and an American Republican government could work so well together. All socialists will appease.

All socialists will appease.
Ironic sentiment, especially when one considers the current ultra conservative Republican administration are behind one of the biggest acts of domestic appeasement ever, just announced.

That said I still believe that Palin is not being treated fairly by the media and I was trying to make a point there.

To be fair I think Palin was treated pretty fairly when she first waltzed onto the election scene.

I watched her inauguration speech at the Republican convention live.
I wasn't too impressed, with half her speech taken up by introducing her family members and saying how proud she was of her son and nephew who were soon going off to fight in Iraq.

Yes she got a few gags in,and delivered a few well rehearsed lines, but she didn't really say much about policy issues or anything of substance.
I was suprised at how the media reported favourably about her address, possibly because I was looking for the detail, rather than the gloss, whereas the media were just looking at the gloss at that time.

The gloss has since come off, largely of her own doing, even a Fox interview wasn't viewed that favourably.

Sure the media may have smelt blood in recent days, but they didn't cause the blood flow, Palin did that by thinking that she was qualified for a job,that really is beyond her limited knowledge and interest on current affairs.

Ironic sentiment, especially when one considers the current ultra conservative Republican administration are behind one of the biggest acts of domestic appeasement ever, just announced.

You can elaborate?

Unless the religious right unseated enough corporate republicans in primaries and so forth to seize the party after such an obvious kick in the teeth I expect they'd set up a splinter party most likely along the populist lines of Huckabee.

A splinter party of the religious right?

No one would vote for them but themselves so the party would never amount to anything as they could never garner enough support. They would end up something like the Libertarian party, a political non entity without a snowball's chance of ever coming to power

That's fine my friend and your vote is up to you to do with it what you want. To me, it would be like voting for a NU *new* Labour. To put your Country into the hands of socialists for even the short term would be the undoing of you and your kinfolk. You will only ever know after time. I happen to think that Palin is vibrant and whilst she may not come across well as the press there paint her in a bad light, She has teeth.

Obama is a soft, lefty/liberal twit that will create the divisions in your Country that we see here now. Multiculturalism will be the way forward and the Mexicans will run riot over your border, so don't be surprised that after you lot laughing at us for so long and calling us Englandistan that you voted in the same policy for yourselves.

Lets see how it goes for you if you get your own way.

A British Conservative government and an American Republican government could work so well together. All socialists will appease.

America is already a multi cultural society. Has been for over a hundred years but the difference between America and the UK is that there is not a part of the population that is being stirred up to hatred by religious fanatics. We all manage to live together in a very succesful harmony overall.

As for the Mexicans, the numbers trying to enter illegally are dropping off sharply due to the lousy economy and subsequent lack of jobs here. The border patrol has been beefed up in numbers and the border wall is in process of being built.

America is already a multi cultural society. Has been for over a hundred years but the difference between America and the UK is that there is not a part of the population that is being stirred up to hatred by religious fanatics. We all manage to live together in a very succesful harmony overall.

As for the Mexicans, the numbers trying to enter illegally are dropping off sharply due to the lousy economy and subsequent lack of jobs here. The border patrol has been beefed up in numbers and the border wall is in process of being built.

I know America is based on a multi-cultural society but like I say, you have to cast your own vote and live by it. I guess the border wall you talk of is being built by your republican party only for your vote to the democrats to smash it apart. You keep the Muslim religious fanatics out by your new found policies then.

You can elaborate?

Well the supposedly non-interventionist Republican government rather caved in to the demands of billion dollar financial institutions, didn't they?

Well the supposedly non-interventionist Republican government rather caved in to the demands of billion dollar financial institutions, didn't they?

Does that remind you of the socialist Nu Labour in any way?

Does that remind you of the socialist Nu Labour in any way?

No.

If you think Nu-Labour were/are the teeniest tiniest bit Socialist, my friend, you are utterly deluded

Nu-Labour is about as Socialist as fly in the air.

StarSparkle

(arranges pom-poms into an A)

OBAA-MA!! OBAA-MA!! OBAA-MA!! OBAA-MA!!


:D

No.

If you think Nu-Labour were/are the teeniest tiniest bit Socialist, my friend, you are utterly deluded

Nu-Labour is about as Socialist as fly in the air.

StarSparkle

Funny how they think they are. Who will you be voting for this next general election StarSparkle?

Does that remind you of the socialist Nu Labour in any way?

Whenever the Republicans take a dislike to something, they tend to label it as 'socialist', one of the worst pejoratives in the Republican lexicon (hence their hatred of 'socialised' medicine, or almost any other state-sponsored intervention in the economy).

Of course it is nonsense: the 'bailout', for example, has nothing to do with socialism, or indeed socialist doctrine, as such. Adam Smith was a believer in regulated markets and in government involvement in various aspects of the economy and society. Were he suddenly to appear in Washington, I strongly suspect that he would be a supporter of the bailout, whilst at the same time castigating the financial imprudence which got us into this mess in the first place.

Ironic sentiment, especially when one considers the current ultra conservative Republican administration are behind one of the biggest acts of domestic appeasement ever, just announced.

It's only passed in the Senate. It faces the House again on Friday, so not yet.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/MNFN139LF0.DTL

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008221336_econ02.html

It's only passed in the Senate. It faces the House again on Friday, so not yet.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/MNFN139LF0.DTL

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008221336_econ02.html

Thanks for that, yes I know, but the administration are backing it, although the representatives could always come to a different conclusion.

Does that remind you of the socialist Nu Labour in any way?

It doesn't remind me of anything specifically, other than addressing your point that appeasement is a bad thing, which clearly it isn't, depending on the circumstances.

"We let Sarah be Sarah. She’s smart, she’s tough, she’s been in debates before. The American people ... the more they see of her, the more they love her, and I’m confident of that at the end." - John McCain.

Now that John McCain knows what he's talking about!:hihi::hihi::hihi:

No.

If you think Nu-Labour were/are the teeniest tiniest bit Socialist, my friend, you are utterly deluded

Nu-Labour is about as Socialist as fly in the air.

StarSparkleExcept for tax, spend, tax, spend, tax the middle classes until the pips squeak, focus on welfare and 'helping' those who've had more than enough help already, introduce more and more state control locally and nationally, and all the associated socialist things they've done.

Except for tax, spend, tax, spend, tax the middle classes until the pips squeak, focus on welfare and 'helping' those who've had more than enough help already, introduce more and more state control locally and nationally, and all the associated socialist things they've done.

More privatisations than under Thatcher.

And the increasing poverty gap demonstrate that it is not the middle classes but the working classes that have paid for the redistribution of wealth under labour to the most wealthy.

Whilst Socialism is about redistribution of wealth, that wealth is supposed to go to the poor not from them to the rich.

And the increasing poverty gap demonstrate that it is not the middle classes but the working classes that have paid for the redistribution of wealth under labour to the most wealthy..Nonsense. The people whose tax burden has shot through the roof are the middle classes. The lower classes are no worse off - they even received an offset for the very fair recent tax adjustment, while middle earners were hit with a 20% NI increase.

Whilst Socialism is about redistribution of wealth, that wealth is supposed to go to the poor not from them to the rich.Only because Blair & co have avoided alienating themselves from their financial backers, and because even they aren't so stupid as to supertax the rich and watch them all leave the UK like happened under the last Labour term.

Nonsense. The people whose tax burden has shot through the roof are the middle classes. The lower classes are no worse off - they even received an offset for the very fair recent tax adjustment, while middle earners were hit with a 20% NI increase.

If you recall the recent tax adjustment redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich. It was not so long ago. I remember doing the calculations on the forum. Those earning less than £15k a year lost out and those earning more benefitted.

Also how do you explain the widening poverty gap, with your claim that the 'lower classes' are no worse off?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article2090632.ece


Only because Blair & co have avoided alienating themselves from their financial backers, and because even they aren't so stupid as to supertax the rich and watch them all leave the UK like happened under the last Labour term.

The super rich avoid paying tax anyway. And frankly good riddance if they aren't prepared to contribute.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice/income-tax/article.html?in_article_id=421577&in_page_id=77

If you recall the recent tax adjustment redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich. It was not so long ago. I remember doing the calculations on the forum.
Also how do you explain the widening poverty gap, with your claim that the 'lower classes' are no worse off?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article2090632.ece
The Super rich avoid tax anyway.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice/income-tax/article.html?in_article_id=421577&in_page_id=77 bvvWe could both quote articles to support our claims - the internet's great for that.

I agree that the super rich get away with tax - it is wrong and there should be a flat tax, which would require everybody to pay about 25%.

As for "Those earning less than £15k a year lost out and those earning more benefitted",
- No. Those on lower incomes have (apart from a very few) been fully compensated for losing the 10% limit. Those earning more have been stuffed by a significant increase (20%) in the upper threshold of 11% NI which cost them more than they would have gained from the income tax change.

As ever, the middle classes suffered another net increase in taxation.

latest : McCain has given up on Michigan. He won't be turning up there any more, and his tv ads have been pulled. So that's 17 EC votes Obama can count on that McCain's campaign had fancied their chances with.

but McCain never had a chance in that state anyway, and I was surprised that he bothered with it all and that the media were reporting it as a possible swing state, which they were. Even Dukkakis took it. McCain can comfortably win the election while losing Michigan.

It doesn't remind me of anything specifically, other than addressing your point that appeasement is a bad thing, which clearly it isn't, depending on the circumstances.

So the Nu Labour socialists are doing the same thing as the American republicans then?

More privatisations than under Thatcher.

And the increasing poverty gap demonstrate that it is not the middle classes but the working classes that have paid for the redistribution of wealth under labour to the most wealthy.

Whilst Socialism is about redistribution of wealth, that wealth is supposed to go to the poor not from them to the rich.

Your socialist ideals are too expensive for the middle class and high earners to afford and the product of your policies are being felt now.

Socialism costs more than it is worth and I think we have all worked that one out. The working "class" man has been screwed under his own government as the rest of us have too. Wake up and smell the coffee. The wrong will be righted in time but not under Nu Labour.

Socialism and capitalism will never work hand in hand. Socialism is all about control and being a nanny state we live in today. It hasn't made us progress very far. A Conservative state is about making people responsible for themselves instead of depending on the state or "others" to provide for them, its about taking ownership of your own life and your future, the very thing that drives a person forward, instead of wanting or lacking and blaming everyone else around you for the fact you didn't study and make something of yourself.

Socialism dictates that the ones who do well in life have to pay to keep the ones who didn't do so well or couldn't be bothered to achieve. I see why you are so happy to sit in a mediocre job now and spit on the likes of me who did something with their life and keep the likes of you.

The super rich avoid paying tax anyway. And frankly good riddance if they aren't prepared to contribute.Like happened under Wilson/Callaghan when we had the brain drain?

Your socialist ideals are too expensive for the middle class and high earners to afford and the product of your policies are being felt now.


The billions of pounds being spent supporting the bad decisions made by the banks because of a lack of regulation has cost us far more than any socialist policy.

latest : McCain has given up on Michigan. He won't be turning up there any more, and his tv ads have been pulled. So that's 17 EC votes Obama can count on that McCain's campaign had fancied their chances with.

but McCain never had a chance in that state anyway, and I was surprised that he bothered with it all and that the media were reporting it as a possible swing state, which they were. Even Dukkakis took it. McCain can comfortably win the election while losing Michigan.

McCain on MSNBC gave a bizarre incoherent explanation for why he was voting in favour of the bill to bail out the US banks.

Because of what you just said, Mika, that this bill is putting us on the brink of economic disaster there were plenty of other bills that I fought against, voted against. Well, the bill that the medicare prescription drug program, I voted against it, because it didn't -- because of the fact that it wasn't paid for. We're laying the cost on to future generations of Americans. I fought against plenty of bills. I am proud of my work, suspending my campaign, coming back to Washington, getting the Republicans at the table, which we were not, improving the bill, and I believe it will pass. Senator Obama phoned it in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFm-Uj9aOhs

The best decoding of it appears to be something like:

Barack Obama failed to put forth an effort to pass a bill that I hate because it "lays the cost on...future generations" and puts us on the "brink" of "disaster," but I am proud of the work I did to ensure its passage.

Sarah Palin disease appears to be communicable. :hihi:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/02/john-mccain-gets-incohere_n_131241.html

[QUOTE=al beit;4133740]Your socialist ideals are too expensive for the middle class and high earners to afford and the product of your policies are being felt now.

Socialism costs more than it is worth and I think we have all worked that one out. The working "class" man has been screwed under his own government as the rest of us have too. Wake up and smell the coffee. The wrong will be righted in time but not under Nu Labour.

Socialism and capitalism will never work hand in hand. Socialism is all about control and being a nanny state we live in today. It hasn't made us progress very far. A Conservative state is about making people responsible for themselves instead of depending on the state or "others" to provide for them, its about taking ownership of your own life and your future, the very thing that drives a person forward, instead of wanting or lacking and blaming everyone else around you for the fact you didn't study and make something of yourself.

Socialism dictates that the ones who do well in life have to pay to keep the ones who didn't do so well or couldn't be bothered to achieve. [B]I see why you are so happy to sit in a mediocre job now and spit on the likes of me who did something with their life and keep the likes of you.[B]QUOTE]

I think you'll find it does...in actual fact it is actually happening.
Who do you think is going to bail out the fat cats at Wall St?..... the government!! which in effect is the people.

Colourful words al beit...when those that do work hard and on a subsistence income bailout those that suck those at the bottom dry.

Capitalism and socialism can work alongside each other if your prepared to lower your boundaries.

The billions of pounds being spent supporting the bad decisions made by the banks because of a lack of regulation has cost us far more than any socialist policy.

It was a socialist government that presided over the whole fiasco.

Your socialist ideals are too expensive for the middle class and high earners to afford and the product of your policies are being felt now.

Socialism costs more than it is worth and I think we have all worked that one out. The working "class" man has been screwed under his own government as the rest of us have too. Wake up and smell the coffee. The wrong will be righted in time but not under Nu Labour.

Socialism and capitalism will never work hand in hand. Socialism is all about control and being a nanny state we live in today. It hasn't made us progress very far. A Conservative state is about making people responsible for themselves instead of depending on the state or "others" to provide for them, its about taking ownership of your own life and your future, the very thing that drives a person forward, instead of wanting or lacking and blaming everyone else around you for the fact you didn't study and make something of yourself.

Socialism dictates that the ones who do well in life have to pay to keep the ones who didn't do so well or couldn't be bothered to achieve. I see why you are so happy to sit in a mediocre job now and spit on the likes of me who did something with their life and keep the likes of you.

I think you'll find it does...in actual fact it is actually happening.
Who do you think is going to bail out the fat cats at Wall St?..... the government!! which in effect is the people.

Colourful words al beit...when those that do work hard and on a subsistence income bailout those that suck those at the bottom dry.

Capitalism and socialism can work alongside each other if your prepared to lower your boundaries.

Your socialist government are the ones who are bailing them out. Personally, I would have identified all the failing banks and shut them down and let the rest of them hoarding their money get back to business as usual. That is a capitalst view and a conservative one also. Your socialist government want to buy bad business.

What sense there is in that? I will never know.

[QUOTE=Alien;4134153]

Your socialist government are the ones who are bailing them out. Personally, I would have identified all the failing banks and shut them down and let the rest of them hoarding their money get back to business as usual. That is a capitalst view and a conservative one also. Your socialist government want to buy bad business.

What sense there is in that? I will never know.

What you on about? The US is not socialist...for that matter nor is the UK. The UK has a conservative government in power cloaked in pseudo socialist ideals.

The US melt down in the housing market which started the whole crisis was caused basically by greed and irresponsible lending practices all the way from Fannie Mae down to the commissiom hungry real estate sales people. Incomes failed to keep up with rising house prices and the scramble for houses in California was unbelievable when sales reached their peak. In my town For Sale signs were hardly up when a Sold sign was stuck onto it. I often wondered during those years where all that would end and it was obvious back then that the whole thing was going to blow sky high sooner or later.

When I bought my house years ago lenders required that the monthly mortgage payment not exceed 25 percent of the buyer's gross monthly income

That was no longer the case by the time the housing market collapsed. Home buyer's we're qualifying for mortgage loans based on half their monthly incomes and lenders were giving out loans that let them pay just the monthly mortgage interest rate only to start and deferring the payment on the monthly principal amount. Crazy situation

[QUOTE=al beit;4134220]

What you on about? The US is not socialist...for that matter nor is the UK. The UK has a conservative government in power cloaked in pseudo socialist ideals.

What am I on about? if you didn't get it first time round you won't get it again.

So Labour is not a socialist government? what pseudo socialist ideals are they portraying or indeed practicing?

What am I on about? if you didn't get it first time round you won't get it again.

So Labour is not a socialist government? what pseudo socialist ideals are they portraying or indeed practicing?

This is going way off track but simply a Socialist Govt would tax the rich not allow 7/8ths of the top 400 earners to avoid paying any tax.

[QUOTE=al beit;4134220]

What you on about? The US is not socialist...for that matter nor is the UK. The UK has a conservative government in power cloaked in pseudo socialist ideals.

The American Democrat party is labour friendly and more orientated towards the middle working class, leftward from the Republicans but it is a far cry from European socialism and in fact is not socialist by any stretch of the imagination Nationalisation for example is not and never was a policy advocated by the Democrats.

I might be incorrect in saying this but the Democrats are basically comparable to the British Liberal party I think.

[QUOTE=Alien;4134282]

What am I on about? if you didn't get it first time round you won't get it again.

So Labour is not a socialist government? what pseudo socialist ideals are they portraying or indeed practicing?

The UK government is practicing the exact ideals you stand for. Just because it says it's a socialist government doesn't (proof is in the pudding) mean it is. In effect what you are arguing against is something you should be arguing for. You already have (if your a yank) a government who is right of center. So do we. The only difference is our government (UK) professes to be for the people where in fact it's suckled corporate business.

The UK government is practicing the exact ideals you stand for. Just because it says it's a socialist government doesn't (proof is in the pudding) mean it is. In effect what you are arguing against is something you should be arguing for. You already have (if your a yank) a government who is right of center. So do we. The only difference is our government (UK) professes to be for the people where in fact it's suckled corporate business.

I'm a Welshman and more British than you. Its quite funny that you presume I am American. This government don't practice any ideals I stand for, quite the opposite. I would like to see a conservative government take over and bring some order to this land.

I don't stand up for one ideal of this socialist nanny state government, I believe in freedom and self accountability. Its funny how all you socialists decry your own creed when your government become a dying ember isn't it?

Talk about rats jumping from a sinking ship.

[QUOTE=al beit;4134220]

What you on about? The US is not socialist...for that matter nor is the UK. The UK has a conservative government in power cloaked in pseudo socialist ideals.

There'e people been trying to tell him this all day, but he just won't listen to sense!

StarSparkle

I'm a Welshman and more British than you. Its quite funny that you presume I am American. This government don't practice any ideals I stand for, quite the opposite. I would like to see a conservative government take over and bring some order to this land.

I don't stand up for one ideal of this socialist nanny state government, I believe in freedom and self accountability. Its funny how all you socialists decry your own creed when your government become a dying ember isn't it?

Talk about rats jumping from a sinking ship.

Utter rubbish.

People have been saying on this Forum for as long as I can remember that this government is no more Socialist than fly in the air.

Looks like you really need those remedial politics lessons I suggested for you earlier

StarSparkle

The Vice presidential debate is taking place right now!

Palin already mentioned the words "hockey mom" and Joe Six pack"

and we are only 10 minutes in!

She looks out of her depth already.

The Vice presidential debate is taking place right now!

Palin already mentioned the words "hockey mom" and Joe Six pack"

and we are only 10 minutes in!

She looks out of her depth already.

I'm working at mo King...can you keep us up to speed?

Mod note:

This thread had gone way, WAY, off topic and I'm now returning it after pruning. Please keep it on topic, thanks. :)

So the Nu Labour socialists are doing the same thing as the American republicans then?

What's your point?

Appeasement or pandering to the wishes of powerful groups is not the political domain, exclusively of Labour Socialists or American Republicans, nor is it necessarily a bad thing, I think the Republican administration line is absolutely the right one in this event.

You appeared to suggest that only socialists appease.


A British Conservative government and an American Republican government could work so well together. All socialists will appease.

Jay Jay French and Friends - I Want Barack


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgkrX-NSt6Q

I'm working at mo King...can you keep us up to speed?

Sorry Alien I turned off my PC to focus on the debate.

My take on it:

Palin certainly put in a better performance than her Couric interviews suggested she was capable of, and some relieved Republicans even think she wiped the floor with Biden, although that is a wild exaggerated viewpoint to say the least.
Biden was clearly the better of the two, with more knowledge and better command of the facts.
I suspect that had the Couric interviews not taken place ,and more eyes were focused on the actual debate, rather than how well Palin would perform, then the headlines would read : Biden too knowlegable for folksy Palin.
But of course the focus was on whether Palin could hold it together or not.
It seemed clear from the outset that Palin was trying to regurgitate memorised facts and talking points ,and had prepared words like "hockey mom" "Joe Six pack" and her favourate word of the evening "maverick" which she reapeated throughout the debate.
Although that seem to backfire towards the end when Biden unleashed his best attack ,when he reeled off a list of policies that showed McCain to be no maverick, Palin had no answer to that.

Palin also sidestepped a number of questions and tried to switchback on her favourite topic, Alaska and Alaskan oil, something she felt more comfortable talking about than foreign policy that's for sure.

When the moderater asked on the Middle East, whether she believed in the 2 state solution Palin talked about Israel being one of America's closest ally, and that American would do all it can to help Israel.........no mention of the Palastinians, even though the question was supposed to be about the 2 state solution.
Unfortunately Biden seem to miss a trick here, in his reply he too made no mention of the Palestinians.
At one point Palin referred to Condoleezza Rice having talks with "leaders" in the region...she couldn't expand on which leaders though.
Palin kept reminding us that McCain was the only one that truely "fought" for America.
She even went as far as saying that John MCcain knows how to win wars, which seemed an odd thing to say ........perhaps forgetting that McCain had been shot down, and taken as a POW in Vietnam.....hardly an example of McCain knowing how to win a war!

The most laughable moment for me, came when Palin was doing her own version of the "Axis of evil". She said Ahmadinejad was insane, and that the world needed protecting against dangerous dictators like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il and the Castro brothers!:hihi:

The Castro brothers!......was Palin having another Palin moment there, was she trying to say Hugo Chavez?....who knows what's in Palin's head.

So Palin survived, but she was a long way from bettering Biden in the debate.
Biden the clear victor in my opinion.

Sorry Alien I turned off my PC to focus on the debate.

My take on it:

Palin certainly put in a better performance than her Couric interviews suggested she was capable of, and some relieved Republicans even think she wiped the floor with Biden, although that is a wild exaggerated viewpoint to say the least.
Biden was clearly the better of the two, with more knowledge and better command of the facts.
I suspect that had the Couric interviews not taken place ,and more eyes were focused on the actual debate, rather than how well Palin would perform, then the headlines would read : Biden too knowlegable for folksy Palin.
But of course the focus was on whether Palin could hold it together or not.
It seemed clear from the outset that Palin was trying to regurgitate memorised facts and talking points ,and had prepared words like "hockey mom" "Joe Six pack" and her favourate word of the evening "maverick" which she reapeated about throughout the debate.
Although that seem to backfire towards the end when Biden unleashed his best attack ,when he reeled off a list of policies that showed McCain to be no maverick, Palin had no answer to that.

Palin also sidestepped a number of questions and tried to switchback on her favourite topic, Alaska and Alaskan oil, something she felt more comfotable talking about than foreign policy that's for sure.

When the moderater asked whether she believed in the 2 state solution Palin
talked about Israel being one of America's closest ally and that American would do all it can to hepl Israel.........no mention of the Palastinians even though the question was supposed to be about the 2 state soloution.
Unfortunately Biden seem to miss a trick here, in his reply he too made no mention of the Palestinians.
At one point Palin refer to Condoleezza Rice having talks with "leaders" in the region...she couldn't expand on which leaders though.
Palin kept reminding us that McCain was the only one that truely "fought" for America.
She even went as far as saying that John MCcain knows how to win wars, which seemed an odd thing to say when few people view the Vietnam war as a victory.

The most laughable moment for me came when Palin was doing her own version of the "Axis of evil". She said Ahmadinejad was insane, and that the world needed protecting against dangerous dictators like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il and the Castro brothers!:hihi:

The Castro brothers!......was Palin having another Palin moment there, was she trying to say Hugo Chavez?....who knows what's in Palin's head.

So Palin survived, but she was a long way from bettering Biden in the debate.
Biden the clear victor in my opinion.


Obviously the back-up act for the Marx Brothers! :hihi: Oh dear... :P

StarSparkle

Here's a clip of some hilariously transparently and rather incompetently attempted propaganda from 'fair and ballenced' Fox News

Nearly unanimous vote for Obama = "split" on FOX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTkqosRiyYo)

For those that can't see the clip the 'reporter' asks the customers in a cafe to raise their hands for the candidate they're going to vote for.

Two people raise their hands for McCain the 'reporter' himself and an old man who's wife immediately makes him put his hand down. Then everyone on camera but for the reporter puts their hand up for Obama. This overwhelming display of support for Obama prompts the following response from the 'reporter'.

"See it's split, I'd say a little heavier towards Obama in the room at the moment and that's why North Eastern Pennsylvania is definitely a battleground area."

Cue the customers in the diner laughing in his face.

For those who know anything about baseball it was like this.

On Wednesday Palin was up at bat with two strikes against her. Last night she hit a home run.

The McCain-Obama game could now be tied

I dont know if the UK gets all the American News channels besides CNN and FOx News but observers here on both side of the political spectrum agree that both Biden and Palin held their own very well.

Having watched the debate myself I found that to be true and there was a pleasant absence of any peevishness on either side. Biden and Palin even appeared to like each other.

What a credit to America, a nation with 300 million people of diverse races, religions and ideas that an election to decide who should lead it can be conducted in such a civilized manner

The Castro brothers!......was Palin having another Palin moment there, was she trying to say Hugo Chavez?....who knows what's in Palin's head.

I believe she was referring to Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, who is now the president of Cuba.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/24/world/main3869691.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3869691

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/americas/25cuba.html

Just to show you how biased Fox are they showed a focus group of supposedly undecided voters after the debate.

When asked who they thought won the debate about 90% put up their hands for Palin!

Fox also had a running TV vote on the screen 87% said they fought Palin had won with Biden only getting 13%!

Now switching back to a more sane channel CNN, they also did a focus group of undecided voters, out of about 40 undecided voters ,about 7 had now decided to vote Democrat, and one decided Rebublican with the rest still undecided.

CNN also did an after debate poll, when asked who people though had won Biden got 51% Palin got 37%.

I believe she was referring to Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, who is now the president of Cuba.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/24/world/main3869691.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3869691

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/americas/25cuba.html

I know who she was referring to, but I felt it laughable that Palin thinks that they are a dangerous threat to the world!:hihi:

For those who know anything about baseball it was like this.

On Wednesday Palin was up at bat with two strikes against her. Last night she hit a home run.

The McCain-Obama game could now be tied


Unlikely, most pundits both Republican and Democrats discussing the debate on CNN, and there were about 10 of them, thought that Palin did enough to prevent further slide, but not enough to win back any lead over undecided voters that the Democrats had gained over the last few weeks.

Here's a clip of some hilariously transparently and rather incompetently attempted propaganda from 'fair and ballenced' Fox News

Nearly unanimous vote for Obama = "split" on FOX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTkqosRiyYo)

For those that can't see the clip the 'reporter' asks the customers in a cafe to raise their hands for the candidate they're going to vote for.

Two people raise their hands for McCain the 'reporter' himself and an old man who's wife immediately makes him put his hand down. Then everyone on camera but for the reporter puts their hand up for Obama. This overwhelming display of support for Obama prompts the following response from the 'reporter'.

"See it's split, I'd say a little heavier towards Obama in the room at the moment and that's why North Eastern Pennsylvania is definitely a battleground area."

Cue the customers in the diner laughing in his face.

FOX is an amazing news channel, you can feel IQ decreasing as you watch it.

Unlikely, most pundits both Republican and Democrats discussing the debate on CNN, and there were about 10 of them, thought that Palin did enough to prevent further slide, but not enough to win back any lead over undecided voters that the Democrats had gained over the last few weeks.

As a middle of the road voter who sibscrribes neither particularly to the left or right let me quote a very true saying as it applies to Palin

"Rumours of my demise were greatly exaggerated'

In politics expect the unexpected

better command of the facts.

That's a statement that is open to debate. The Republicans have already started pointing out a several untruths Biden made in his answers. However I've not seen the debate so maybe Palin was even worse.

As a middle of the road voter who sibscrribes neither particularly to the left or right let me quote a very true saying as it applies to Palin

"Rumours of my demise were greatly exaggerated'

In politics expect the unexpected

If, in any way, you are implying that Palin has credibility of any description you are not the man I thought you were.

That's a statement that is open to debate. The Republicans have already started pointing out a several untruths Biden made in his answers. However I've not seen the debate so maybe Palin was even worse.

But that's to be expected, Republicans might be able to find some "untruths" depending on how they view the truth.

Democrats might find it a harder job though, as Palin didn't actually give out too many details or facts to scrutinise in the first place!

Unlikely, most pundits both Republican and Democrats discussing the debate on CNN, and there were about 10 of them, thought that Palin did enough to prevent further slide, but not enough to win back any lead over undecided voters that the Democrats had gained over the last few weeks.

This seems to be the outcome. Obviously a huge part of politics is the expectation game. Expectations were so low she really just had to look better than the Couric interview to get some form of result. Media called a tie, the polls after called win for Biden. Amongst Independents Biden also won big.

Not enough to help McCain, but not enough to cause a further slide in the polls although we are still not sure where the current momentum for Obama will take is in the polls, they don't seem to have fully settled yet.

However she misstated a number of McCain’s positions causing his campaign to scrabble to do damage control.

For instance in an effort to paint a picture of Obama as somebody who will raise taxes, even though his policy documents cut taxes on 95% of the population, she made a statement about 93 votes to raise taxes. Under further inspection;


–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"


The problem is that these statements are aimed at the low information voters, your Fox news viewer or somebody who really only watched the local news. Clearly things are more complicated in real life.

I think the Republicans problem in this election is their usual disinformation routine is not working. So they have their base of Christian Conservatives and low information voters, but the real issues is other people are paying more attention this year than previous years and economic Conservatives hve rebelled against McCain, which shows clearly in the polls.

If, in any way, you are implying that Palin has credibility of any description you are not the man I thought you were.

You are not paying attention Swami or not getting gist of my words. What I am saying is that Palin has come back from being written off as a complete loser to someone who has earned a modicum of credibility. That is a fact without me expressing this as a McCain supporter which I am not in the upcoming election. One has to see the facts from a general standpoint.

If she continues to earn some degree of credibilty over the next few weeks amongst voters who at this time have reservations about her fitness to take over the presidency this election like the last two will be an extremely close one.

Personally I would feel more comfortable spending a day at Santa Anita betting on the horsies than I would making a bet on the outcome of the election

You are not paying attention Swami or not getting gist of my words. What I am saying is that Palin has come back from being written off as a complete loser to someone who has earned a modicum of credibility. That is a fact without me expressing this as a McCain supporter which I am not in the upcoming election. One has to see the facts from a general standpoint.

If she continues to earn some degree of credibilty over the next few weeks amongst voters who at this time have reservations about her fitness to take over the presidency this election like the last two will be an extremely close one.

Personally I would feel more comfortable spending a day at Santa Anita betting on the horsies than I would making a bet on the outcome of the election

It's just as i feared then... am receiving you loud and clear...and...gullibility on an hitherto unheard of scale...even counting Dubya.

You have my best wishes Harleyman...if the Republicans do get in you'll need all the help you can get IMO.
Blessings. :)

That's a statement that is open to debate. The Republicans have already started pointing out a several untruths Biden made in his answers. However I've not seen the debate so maybe Palin was even worse.

Looks like Palin spoke several untruths too:

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/824957.html

It's just as i feared then... am receiving you loud and clear...and...gullibility on an hitherto unheard of scale...even counting Dubya.

You have my best wishes Harleyman...if the Republicans do get in you'll need all the help you can get IMO.
Blessings. :)

There's no guillibilty. I am merely observing trends taking place during the process of an election campaign just the same as if I were observing changes in the weather. You dont seem to get it.

I"ve seen a few presidents during my time in the States. Whether McCain or Obama wins wont make much difference to my life style so I wont fret over it.

You are not paying attention Swami or not getting gist of my words. What I am saying is that Palin has come back from being written off as a complete loser to someone who has earned a modicum of credibility. That is a fact without me expressing this as a McCain supporter which I am not in the upcoming election. One has to see the facts from a general standpoint.

If she continues to earn some degree of credibilty over the next few weeks amongst voters who at this time have reservations about her fitness to take over the presidency this election like the last two will be an extremely close one.

Personally I would feel more comfortable spending a day at Santa Anita betting on the horsies than I would making a bet on the outcome of the election

And I'd be right alongside you. Politics in the US can change dramatically in the blink of an eye, or as fast as a horse takes to run it's course.

It seems Palin didn't gaff like she did in previous interviews. Then again if you don't have the knowledge your not going to make a political impact and impact was lacking...from both sides. I have to give her respect for just getting on the podium though...it must have been nerve racking just from a human perspective.

A suggestion: Does anyone think the republicans have lost the will or steam to really go for it? It's just that i'm getting a real feeling they just don't have it. To be honest who'd want it...the country is bankrupt. If the Republicans lose..they lose! If the democrats win...they lose big style, as they inherit the lot. Maybe the republicans have already decided to take time out?

I'm sure the Republicans could have put forward better candidates...or was it just a very clever move?
I would bet millions voted for Blair on the strength of his smile rather than his politics...same goes for Palin..An all White American attractive girl with what some would see as cutely naive. The Americans are great people...but boy are they weird! Look who got in last time...:(

I agree Harleyman...if she's advised to play it cool and only open her mouth when advised......she, not him, could turn it around. Scary huh?

And I'd be right alongside you. Politics in the US can change dramatically in the blink of an eye, or as fast as a horse takes to run it's course.

It seems Palin didn't gaff like she did in previous interviews. Then again if you don't have the knowledge your not going to make a political impact and impact was lacking...from both sides. I have to give her respect for just getting on the podium though...it must have been nerve racking just from a human perspective.

A suggestion: Does anyone think the republicans have lost the will or steam to really go for it? It's just that i'm getting a real feeling they just don't have it. To be honest who'd want it...the country is bankrupt. If the Republicans lose..they lose! If the democrats win...they lose big style, as they inherit the lot. Maybe the republicans have already decided to take time out?

I'm sure the Republicans could have put forward better candidates...or was it just a very clever move?
I would bet millions voted for Blair on the strength of his smile rather than his politics...same goes for Palin..An all White American attractive girl with what some would see as cutely naive. The Americans are great people...but boy are they weird! Look who got in last time...:(

I agree Harleyman...if she's advised to play it cool and only open her mouth when advised......she, not him, could turn it around. Scary huh?

What impact could you expect them to make. They spoke of and debated the problems that currently concern people in this country. There was as usual a lot of playing the blame game on the main issues the economy, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the potential threat of Iran developing a nuclear bomb, energy issues, terrorism. I dont think anyone in the country expected or could expect any radical or startling solutions from them on any of these issues at this particular time

Palin had obviously been groomed for the debate which had been essential since she was up against a Washington politician who had been a senator when she was just a high school cheerleader but she held her own very well and I have to give her her due, She is certainly not dumb even though many like to say
she is. Also it would be a big mistake to assume that she is naive. I've got enough insight of people's characters to reckon that she could be a real hard ass when she has to be. Nice cute little smiles are just for show.

Why McCain picked her is obvious. It was to grab the votes of the disaffected female Hillary Clinton supporters who were disgusted that Obama had hijacked the nomination from the heiress apparent (Hillary Clinton) but that was a risky move by McCain and may backfire on him.

Mike Huckabee would have been the best choice for a running mate for a Republican candidate more cautious and less of a risk taker than McCain

I dont know what you mean by Americans being weird. I think it's a sign of the great progress made in this country that a black man and a woman are now candidates for the presidency and vice presidency

When will the UK have a non-white prime minister? Britain has like America been multicultural for many years. Are there any non-white MPs in England these days? There weren't when I lived there

I dont expect Euro-socialists will ever understand American politics so maybe I'm wasting my time posting this. I dont understand modern Euro politics either. There are people on this forum who despise Blair as being a phony socialist who headed a fake socialist government.

So what is real socialism in it's purest form? I remember some of the old socialist Joes back in the day but they seemed to me to be communists dressed in socialist skins. What is the difference between pure socialism and communism?

Fidel Castro claims to head a socialist society but look at the state of Cuba after 50 years under him. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela aspires to turn his country into a socialist paradise but in five years time he'll have impoverished it if he continues his current policies.

Palin had obviously been groomed for the debate which had been essential since she was up against a Washington politician who had been a senator when she was just a high school cheerleader but she held her own very well and I have to give her her due, She is certainly not dumb even though many like to say she is. Also it would be a big mistake to assume that she is naive. I've got enough insight of people's characters to reckon that she could be a real hard ass when she has to be. Nice cute little smiles are just for show.



Hmm, I beg to differ.

If you cut out all of Palin's repeated prepared words that she kept coming out with, in a less than subtle attempt to "connect" with average common Joe on main street, like "Hockey mom" "Joe Six Pack" and most of all "maverick", and you cut out all of Palin's repeated mentions of Alaska and Alaskan oil when it was nothing to do with the question posed,cut out all the other responses to questions she side stepped and didn't answer,...........well there's not a lot left!:suspect:

Whilst Palin bettered her self imposed low expectation bar,......
Hold her own? I don't think so.

A CNN quick web poll on the current Larry King Live shows Biden beating Palin by a country mile:

Who won the debate?
Sen. Joe Biden 85% 9382
Gov. Sarah Palin 15% 1709
Total Votes: 11091

Oct 4 2008

http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/03/your-turn-to-debate-the-debate/

Interesting various poll results on the Vice Presidential debate:

CBS Biden 46% Palin 21%

CNN: Biden 51% Palin 36%

FOX NEWS: Biden 61% Palin 39%

MSNBC: Biden 52% Palin 38%

AOL: Biden 48% to Palin 45%

MediaCurves: Biden 67% to Palin 33%.

Survey USA: Biden 51% Palin 32%

After the debate I did notice on FoxNews a running poll that gave Palin 87% to Biden 13% so I assume the Fox News poll in the list is a diffrent poll to the Fox TV phone in poll.
Can't really see even the most ardent Palin supporter arguing that Palin won in the polls!

which only goes to show that the choice of running mate, in 90% of cases, has no effect on the final outcome of the election. People will vote for a President on November 4, not a Prez and Veep.


The viewing figures for the vice presidential debate suggest more people are carefully scrutinising the Vice President much more than usual especially with McCain's choice of Palin.

"Thursday night's debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden attracted just shy of 70 million viewers - only one presidential or vice-presidential debate in history has recorded a larger audience."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/philip_sherwell/blog/2008/10/04/sarah_palin_the_crowdpuller_draws_70_million_debat e_audience

Interesting various poll results on the Vice Presidential debate:

CBS Biden 46% Palin 21%

CNN: Biden 51% Palin 36%

FOX NEWS: Biden 61% Palin 39%

MSNBC: Biden 52% Palin 38%

AOL: Biden 48% to Palin 45%

MediaCurves: Biden 67% to Palin 33%.

Survey USA: Biden 51% Palin 32%

After the debate I did notice on FoxNews running poll that gave Palin 87% to Biden 13% so I assume the Fox News poll in the list is a diffrent poll to the Fox TV phone in poll.
Can't really see even the most ardent Palin supporter arguing that Palin won in the polls!

As on so many other things, the great Dr. Johnson is worthy of quoting here. He once said that the remarkable thing about a dog dancing on its hind legs is not that it does it well, but that it does it at all. Palin was very much the dancing dog last Thursday. The dog analogy is also apt, because she had obviously been trained to perform the equivalent of party tricks in the debate.

As on so many other things, the great Dr. Johnson is worthy of quoting here. He once said that the remarkable thing about a dog dancing on its hind legs is not that it does it well, but that it does it at all. Palin was very much the dancing dog last Thursday. The dog analogy is also apt, because she had obviously been trained to perform the equivalent of party tricks in the debate.

The dancing pitbull with lipstick!:hihi:

The dancing pitbull with lipstick!:hihi:

and a nice waggly tail....

I'd love to see a Pit Bull in the white house...we need another Thatcher :thumbsup:

I'd love to see a Pit Bull in the white house...we need another Thatcher :thumbsup:
And Palin is 'another Thatcher' how exactly? Thatcher was obviously a extremely intelligent well informed woman who unlike Palin could do a lot more than parrot memorised talking points. Thatcher dominated the House of Commons for a decade, Palin can't even handle Couric on her own.

Thatcher outclasses Palin in every way, she's simply leagues above her, your attempt to equate Palin to Thatcher is so ridiculous it makes Cherie's claim that Blair is on a par with Churchill look sensible by comparison. :loopy:

And Palin is 'another Thatcher' how exactly? Thatcher was obviously a extremely intelligent well informed woman who unlike Palin could do a lot more than parrot memorised talking points. Thatcher dominated the House of Commons for a decade, Palin can't even handle Couric on her own.

Thatcher outclasses Palin in every way, she's simply leagues above her, your attempt to equate Palin to Thatcher is so ridiculous it makes Cherie's claim that Blair is on a par with Churchill look sensible by comparison. :loopy:

Lokks like she could be a fast learner to me...got to start somewhere..anythings better that Obama.

Obama wants to tax the rich, where does that leave the middle working class ? in other words he wants to tax success.

Obama wants to tax the rich, where does that leave the middle working class ? in other words he wants to tax success.


Success? Have you noticed what's happening in your country because of the foolish notion that if you leave the people who are making the most money to get on with it and don't trouble them with communist ideas of regulation and taxes, everything will just work out.

Lokks like she could be a fast learner to me...got to start somewhere..
She's in her 40s has been politically active for many years and yet can't name a newspaper she reads, a supreme court case other than Roe v Wade... she's anything but a 'fast learner'.

Thatcher wouldn't have even appointed someone as stupid as Palin to a junior ministerial post never mind as her deputy, that McCain chose someone so manifestly ill qualified as his VP candidate is yet more evidence of what a cynical politician he has become and the extent to which he's prepared to damage his country in pursuit of personal power.

anythings better that Obama.
Why because you say so?

Obama wants to tax the rich, where does that leave the middle working class ? in other words he wants to tax success.
Or maybe he wants to atleast make an attempt to try and balance the books as unlike Bush, McCain and Palin he doesn't think that it's a good idea to simultaneously cut taxes and raise spending.

Obamas plans would 'leave the middle working class' paying proportionally less of the US's tax burden and hopefully slightly better off, though of course those plans were made before the extent to which the Republicans obsession with deregulation had damaged the US economy became clear.

Incidentally I note that in your last post you failed to suggest even a single way in which Palin would be 'another Thatcher' as you bizarrely claimed she would be, perhaps you can correct this oversight in your next post?

Looks like she could be a fast learner to me...got to start somewhere..

Yea, but most politicians running for high office usually have a keen interest in national and world affairs at least from their college years.
It's clear Palin really hasn't been a keen student on national,and certainly not foreign issues unless they directly affected the state of Alaska.
This is no time to start to attain an interest in world affairs.:suspect:

Thatcher was obviously a extremely intelligent well informed woman

Thatcher knew nothing about foreign affairs/IR when she was elected. She was one of the least qualified PM's in recent times. Only Blair was less experienced than she since 1945 when they assumed office. Most PM's have done one of the big ministerial jobs - Foreign Secretary, Chancellor, or at least Home Office. Callaghan had done them all.

The whole issue with Palin is directly connected to McCains age. If he were twenty years younger then Palin's lack of experience wouldn't be controversial to such a degree but one has to face the fact that if McCain were suddenly to become incapacitated or die in office then she would be pitched into the hot seat.

Bear in mind however that presidents have advisors both civilian and military and they are not all of one mind set or opinion.

A realistic example of how the presidency would work in a real crisis see the movie "Thirteen days" starring Kevin Costner

Thatcher was obviously a extremely intelligent well informed woman

Thatcher knew nothing about foreign affairs/IR when she was elected.
On what grounds do you make this claim? Thatcher was a highly intelligent woman (she won a scholarship to Oxford) who'd been politically active for decades before she became PM, travelling the world and voting on foreign policy. She'd already given the speech on foreign policy which garnered her the nick name 'the iron lady' from the Soviets before she became PM, she knew much more than 'nothing' about foreign policy and much more generally than Palin does now or ever will as unlike Palin Thatcher was both highly able and interested in learning things.

She was one of the least qualified PM's in recent times. Only Blair was less experienced than she since 1945 when they assumed office. Most PM's have done one of the big ministerial jobs - Foreign Secretary, Chancellor, or at least Home Office. Callaghan had done them all.
Thatcher was an MP for 20 years before she became PM most of those on the front bench both as a minister and in opposition she was no neophyte.

Crucially not only did Thatcher have much more experience and knowledge than Palin but unlike Palin Thatcher clearly demonstrated that she had the intelligence to hold high office, something Palin's every interview makes it painfully clear she completely lacks.

The whole issue with Palin is directly connected to McCains age. If he were twenty years younger then Palin's lack of experience wouldn't be controversial to such a degree but one has to face the fact that if McCain were suddenly to become incapacitated or die in office then she would be pitched into the hot seat.


Say it ain't so Joe, Dog -Gonit!:wink:

On what grounds do you make this claim? Thatcher was a highly intelligent woman (she won a scholarship to Oxford)

in chemistry, a subject she later admitted was totally the wrong thing for her to take, which is why she retrained as a barrister (and in which career, like Blair, she made absolutely no impression). Also, like Blair, at no point in her time at Oxford did she shine academically, or make any impression in student politics - unlike legions of her Ministers in the 80s such as Fowler, Clarke, Gummer, Lamont, et al

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Mafia

no other Tory PM has had less ministerial experience than Thatcher. She won the 1975 leadership election as a total outsider, and knew next to nothing about even economics, never mind foreign affairs at the time she became party leader. Not that any of this mattered, because she had the one capability that Prime Ministers and Presidents need over anything else - executive ability.

Palin is the only one of either Obama, McCain, or Biden that has got any executive experience at all. None of those have ever governed anything.

Thatcher wouldn't have even appointed someone as stupid as Palin to a junior ministerial post never mind as her deputy, that McCain chose someone so manifestly ill qualified as his VP candidate is yet more evidence of what a cynical politician he has become and the extent to which he's prepared to damage his country in pursuit of personal power.

Palin has more in common with Edwina Currie than Margaret Thatcher.

Palin is the only one of either Obama, McCain, or Biden that has got any executive experience at all. None of those have ever governed anything.

Executive experience counts for little, if you don't have a good interest and grasp on National and International issues.
Any executive experience she may have gained is more than cancelled out by her lack of understanding or interests in issues outside the state of Alaska.
Palin is very much a local politician, who's aspirations to transfer to the national and international stage are a joke.
Let's not forget that Palin is governor of a state that has a population the size of under 700,000 that's only two thirds that of Birminham.
And now she thinks she's qualified to govern a population of 300,000,000 because she has some "executive" experience!

Palin's latest attack on Obama trying to paint him as a person in league with terrorists, based merely on an article she read in the New York times just goes to show she is not fit to run for high office.:suspect:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C6H3Xuk1T2w

Executive experience counts for little, if you don't have a good interest and grasp on National and International issues.
Any executive experience she may have gain is more than cancelled out by her lack of understanding or interests in issues outside the state of Alaska.
Palin is very much a local politician, who's aspirations to transfer to the national and international stage are a joke.
Let's not forget that Palin is governor of a state that has a population the size of under 700,000 that's only two thirds that of Birminham.
And now she thinks she's qualified to govern a population of 300,000,000 because she has some "executive" experience!

Palin's latest attack on Obama trying to paint him as a person in league with terrorists, based merely on an article she read in the New York times just goes to show she is not fit to run for high office.:suspect:

Please tell me how you know what newspapers she's read ? Also Barack Hussein Obama has been very friendly with Bill Ayers for years, the relationship only died down in 2005 (supposedly) , so stop your silly guessing game, Oh! also had to cut ties with his pastor that he listened to his preachings for over 20 years yet didn't hear a word he said :hihi:

Barack Hussein Obama


Adolph Poppins

Adolph Poppins

I thank you :thumbsup: :D

Please tell me how you know what newspapers she's read ? Also Barack Hussein Obama has been very friendly with Bill Ayers for years, the relationship only died down in 2005 (supposedly) , so stop your silly guessing game, Oh! also had to cut ties with his pastor that he listened to his preachings for over 20 years yet didn't hear a word he said :hihi:

Errr pehaps because on TV last night Palin said she read the article in the New York Times!:loopy::loopy:

See for yourself from her own lips!:suspect:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C6H3Xuk1T2w&feature=related

Please tell me how you know what newspapers she's read ? Also Barack Hussein Obama has been very friendly with Bill Ayers for years, the relationship only died down in 2005 (supposedly) , so stop your silly guessing game, Oh! also had to cut ties with his pastor that he listened to his preachings for over 20 years yet didn't hear a word he said :hihi:

Where as McCain's public relationship with G. Gordon Liddy who in his part in the Watergate scandal was involved in political corruption, plotting murder, working with gangsters and actively involved in subverting US democracy and the Constitution. Some patriot. Obama's relationship with Ayers is dubious to say the least. McCain's relationship with Liddy is well documented.

In comparison I would say Obama has the better record on patriotic honest associates.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004

I like it how they all boo when she states her choice of newspaper.

Where as McCain's public relationship with G. Gordon Liddy who in his part in the Watergate scandal was involved in political corruption, plotting murder, working with gangsters and actively involved in subverting US democracy and the Constitution. Some patriot. Obama's relationship with Ayers is dubious to say the least. McCain's relationship with Liddy is well documented.

In comparison I would say Obama has the better record on patriotic honest associates.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004

Isn't it strange how Poppin knows that Obama was "very friendly" with ayers for years!

Were you there Poppins?:rolleyes:

I like it how they all boo when she states her choice of newspaper.

It is strange when from the Media Matters report the New York Times has been strongly supporting McCain with their smears on Obama.

What more could the republicans expect from the paper?

It is strange when from the Media Matters report the New York Times has been strongly supporting McCain with their smears on Obama.

What more could the republicans expect from the paper?

Obedience.

Palin is very much a local politician

all American politicians are 'local' politicians in that they are identified with a particular state. Only when they decide to run for President does their profile rise. Hardly anybody outside Massachussets or Connecticut had ever heard of John Kerry or Joe Lieberman before they ran for President. Ditto Clinton, hardly anybody outside Arkansas had ever heard of him either, even though he was state Governor, like Pailin is, of a state seen as a backwater. Bush Jnr was a bit different, partly because his dad had been President, but also because many more Americans can name the governor of states like Texas and New York as opposed to Idaho and Wyoming.

Palin is very much a local politician

all American politicians are 'local' politicians in that they are identified with a particular state. Only when they decide to run for President does their profile rise. Hardly anybody outside Massachussets or Connecticut had ever heard of John Kerry or Joe Lieberman before they ran for President. Ditto Clinton, hardly anybody outside Arkansas had ever heard of him either, even though he was state Governor, like Palin is, of a state seen as a backwater.

You seem to have missed my point, when I said "Palin is very much a local politician" I meant in terms of the way she thinks.
As seen in her debate, when asked by moderator Gwen Ifil questions about the economy, energy, or her views on climate change, and even when Biden brought up the subject of Darfor, Palin simply spouted out her experience in Alaska and Alaskan oil.
At one point Palin tied to argue that drilling oil in Alaska would somehow help National security!:loopy:.....she didn't exactly expand on what she meant by that!
Palin seems to think that America was only a slightly bigger version of Alaska!:hihi:
So in that respect she certainly is a local politician.

So in that respect she certainly is a local politician.

She can see Russia from her Alaskan house, that has to count for something.

Some Palin dishonesty:

I'm posting this because none of the direct, indisputably proven, factual untruths that Palin has uttered has yet to be retracted by this candidate or her running mate. When you have a leading politician running on a record of outright lies, and those lies are deemed irrelevant, you have a problem. Each one has been fact-checked to near-death. They are not the usual political lie - hyperbole, parsing, exaggeration, spin. They are factual, checkable, indisputable untruths.

Palin could not have asked her girls for permission to accept McCain's veep offer if she also says she accepted the offer unblinkingly and right away. Palin did fire a police chief even as she insisted to a reporter she hadn't. She did violate the confidential medical records of Mike Wooten. She hasn't met with any trade missions from Russia. She does not have any gay friends that anyone can find. She did not oppose the Bridge to Nowhere. She did not sell that plane on eBay. Her Teleprompter did not fail in her convention speech. Alaska's state scientists did not conclude that polar bears were in no danger. She did deny publicly that humans had anything to do with climate change.

Alaska does not provide "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy," as she claimed. The gas pipeline she touts as her major "mission accomplished" has not broken ground and may never do so. She did not take a pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla. And on and on. Anyone with Google can check all of these out. Including reporters.

These are all documented, bald-faced factually irrefutable lies. More to the point: she refuses to cop to them or be held accountable for them or take questions about them. Until she does, we can rightly infer there is no reason to believe anything she says, and that includes her recent medical history. A liar like this cannot be taken on trust. We have to verify it all.

I note it concludes with the observation : "there is no reason to believe anything she says" :(

the link includes the references:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-lies-and-li.html

The next presidential debate gets under way tonight.

I wonder if we will get the same crusty old "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand" McCain this time around.
The more I see of McCain, the more he reminds me of a guy who's battery seems to be running very low.

I can only say that in my years of voting in US elections that this is the poorest ticket of candidates I've ever seen.

Neither of the candidates have any substance worth mentioning and it's a real tragedy for a country currently going through one of the severest crisis since the great depression. The country needs strong decisive leadership more than ever at this time and neither of these two give any impression of being able to supply this needed quality

NcCain doesen't seem to have a clue as to how to handle the economy and his pick of Palin was a gamble that is now seen as not very smart

Obama is troubling given some of his background. His association with Bill Ayers is well documented in the Richard J. Daley library of the University of Illinois. Obama was on the board of Ayers Chicago Anneberg Challenge CAC)until as late as 2001. The CAC gave millions into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists. Obama dismisses his association with Ayers as "just an associate and another guy in the neighborhood" despite his knowledge that Ayers was the founder and leader of the Weathermen a radical terrorist group in the 1960s.

His statement that he will raise taxes on the rich (ie those making more than 350K per year) is troubling also. A person making 350K is not what I would call rich and raising taxes could well backfire as many businesses will not expand and provide additional employment at a time when many are already losing jobs


The country is near bankruptcy so for all McCain and Obama's rhetoric about "doing this and doing that" it wont happen since there'll be no money to implement any of their election promises.

Latest poll shows Obama leading by 7 percent and McCain losing in the critical states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida

Tonight's debate will be polite and civilized I predict. Both candidates use their VPs to play the blame game

The truth is that the current mess was the fault of both the Democrats and Republicans and goes back many years into the Clinton administration.

Sad to see these two trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes but that's politics aint it?

I can only say that in my years of voting in US elections that this is the poorest ticket of candidates I've ever seen.

The country is near bankruptcy so for all McCain and Obama's rhetoric about "doing this and doing that" it wont happen since there'll be no money to implement any of their election promises.


You may be right harleyman, but I do think America has often saddled herself with some weak choices when it comes to the presidency.

Reagan, Kennedy and Mr Sh**nasty Clinton were effective communicators, but if you put many American presidents up against British leaders or senior politicians from a knowledge base point of view they will inevitably be found wanting.

To be honest, I actually feel sorry for whoever wins this election, the baton that Bush passes on will be the hot potato amongst poisoned challices.

Obama is troubling given some of his background. His association with Bill Ayers is well documented in the Richard J. Daley library of the University of Illinois. Obama was on the board of Ayers Chicago Anneberg Challenge CAC)until as late as 2001. The CAC gave millions into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists. Obama dismisses his association with Ayers as "just an associate and another guy in the neighborhood" despite his knowledge that Ayers was the founder and leader of the Weathermen a radical terrorist group in the 1960s.



But you can't smear Obama merely by association.
If that was the case,then you would have to smear every college professor and student that has come out of,or had any association with the University of Illinois.
For all we know there may be people in the current White House, or Republican party that have attended Illinois University,or even had lectures given by Ayers or his wife.

And If you want a double standard then consider this:

Palin is probably ignorant of the fact that Israel, the country that Palin repeatedly says is America's closest ally and calls the good guys,once had as their Prime Minister,Menachem Begin, a man who was directly responsible for bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 killing 91 people and injuring 45.

Ayers injured noone, Begin killed 91.

So by Palin's simple headed thinking, the Nation of Israel must now be "pally with terrorists" too,since they let one become their Prime Minister.
So how can Palin call Israel the good guys despite their terrorist past, and yet call out Obama for his "association" with Ayers?:huh:

You may be right harleyman, but I do think America has often saddled herself with some weak choices when it comes to the presidency.

Reagan, Kennedy and Mr Sh**nasty Clinton were effective communicators, but if you put many American presidents up against British leaders or senior politicians from a knowledge base point of view they will inevitably be found wanting.

To be honest, I actually feel sorry for whoever wins this election, the baton that Bush passes on will be the hot potato amongst poisoned challices.

Hard to believe that in a nation of this size and a world super power that the system could not come up with a better choice than these two boyfriday.

I respect McCain as a war hero and Obama has a lot of charm and personality but neither of them meet the criteria in what is needed as a leader of a nation in deep financial crisis.

Anyway I wont be here to vote on November 4 as I will be away on a trip to China. :

I agree with you on the unlucky winner. He'll inherit one hell of a screwed up mess.

Hard to believe that in a nation of this size and a world super power that the system could not come up with a better choice than these two boyfriday.

I respect McCain as a war hero and Obama has a lot of charm and personality but neither of them meet the criteria in what is needed as a leader of a nation in deep financial crisis.

Anyway I wont be here to vote on November 4 as I will be away on a trip to China. :

I agree with you on the unlucky winner. He'll inherit one hell of a screwed up mess.

So sad, but so true :(

So sad, but so true :(

Al Qaeda is not the only group of terrorists the US has to deal with. The other terrorists are the fat pigs, the CEOs of companies like Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and also the inept stupid people from the government who failed to provide oversight into the activities of these companies and investigate their fraudulent activities and false reports to shareholders

I would hope that whoever wins this election will appoint an attorney general who will start proceedings against all involved and take measures to recover the billions these gangsters have siphoned off

The rampant corruption of big business in this country, including the big oil companies over the last 10 years is unbelievable

But you can't smear Obama merely by association.
If that was the case,then you would have to smear every college professor and student that has come out of,or had any association with the University of Illinois.
For all we know there may be people in the current White House, or Republican party that have attended Illinois University,or even had lectures given by Ayers or his wife.

And If you want a double standard then consider this:

Palin is probably ignorant of the fact that Israel, the country that Palin repeatedly says is America's closest ally and calls the good guys,once had as their Prime Minister,Menachem Begin, a man who was directly responsible for bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 killing 91 people and injuring 45.

Ayers injured noone, Begin killed 91.

So by Palin's simple headed thinking, the Nation of Israel must now be "pally with terrorists" too,since they let one become their Prime Minister.
So how can Palin call Israel the good guys despite their terrorist past, and yet call out Obama for his "association" with Ayers?:huh:

Why should the US base it's standard for a presidential candidates's integrity on Israel's? They have their standards, the US I would hope have theirs also.
If the Israelis found it acceptable to elect an old terrorist as prime minister that's their affair.

That doesn't justify overlooking Obama's past connection with Ayers.

You might want to know also that a few months ago Obama gave a very rousing speech to a Jewish group pledging his strong support for Israel so both candidates are already in the Israeli camp

Al Qaeda is not the only group of terrorists the US has to deal with. The other terrorists are the fat pigs, the CEOs of companies like Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and also the inept stupid people from the government who failed to provide oversight into the activities of these companies and investigate their fraudulent activities and false reports to shareholders

I would hope that whoever wins this election will appoint an attorney general who will start proceedings against all involved and take measures to recover the billions these gangsters have syphoned off

The rampant corruption of big business in this country, including the big oil companies over the last 10 years is unbelievable

Now that's a funny statement coming from an American democratic supporter, seeing as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two biggest mortgage underwriters in America) are the biggest reason behind the credit crunch and yet they are the biggest financial donors to the American democratic party????

After all the times the Republicans brought out enforcement policies against these companies in congress to regulate them, the democrats voted against it along with Obama.

Now that's a funny statement coming from an American democratic supporter, seeing as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two biggest mortgage underwriters in America) are the biggest reason behind the credit crunch and yet they are the biggest financial donors to the American democratic party????

After all the times the Republicans brought out enforcement policies against these companies in congress to regulate them, the democrats voted against it along with Obama.

You assume that I'm a Democrat supporter but I owe my vote to neither party in particular.

My earlier post was to point out that the government's (Democrat and Republican factions) lack of oversight was responsible for allowing the fraud, lies and criminal irresponsibility of the CEOs to run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground. There's no Mister Clean here. Members of both parties had their hands in it even if they're now playing their silly election game of accusation and counter accusation.

If the Republicans are so blameless in all this why weren't their enforcement policies against these companies, and the Democrats policy of voting against these policies made public?

The silence from all of them was deafening until it all suddenly blew up a couple of weeks ago

Why should the US base it's standard for a presidential candidates's integrity on Israel's? They have their standards, the US I would hope have theirs also.
If the Israelis found it acceptable to elect an old terrorist as prime minister that's their affair.

That doesn't justify overlooking Obama's past connection with Ayers.

You might want to know also that a few months ago Obama gave a very rousing speech to a Jewish group pledging his strong support for Israel so both candidates are already in the Israeli camp

You miss my point!

My point was to illustrate how guilt by association is flimsy at best, in both Obama with Ayers and, Israel with Begin.

But if you are going to use guilt by association like Palin has, then you have to be even handed, Palin can't call Obama "pally" with terrorists, when at the same time calls Isreal the good guys.

You assume that I'm a Democrat supporter but I owe my vote to neither party in particular.

My earlier post was to point out that the government's (Democrat and Republican factions) lack of oversight was responsible for allowing the fraud, lies and criminal irresponsibility of the CEOs to run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the ground. There's no Mister Clean here. Members of both parties had their hands in it even if they're now playing their silly election game of accusation and counter accusation.

If the Republicans are so blameless in all this why weren't their enforcement policies against these companies, and the Democrats policy of voting againt these policies made public made public

As I said they're all up to their necks in it.

Oh really?

You are not paying attention Swami or not getting gist of my words. What I am saying is that Palin has come back from being written off as a complete loser to someone who has earned a modicum of credibility. That is a fact without me expressing this as a McCain supporter which I am not in the upcoming election. One has to see the facts from a general standpoint.

Do you want me to point out more support for the terrorist democratic party for you? :hihi:

You miss my point!

My point was to illustrate how guilt by association is flimsy at best, in both Obama with Ayers and, Israel with Begin.

But if you are going to use guilt by association like Palin has, then you have to be even handed, Palin can't call Obama "pally" with terrorists, when at the same time calls Isreal the good guys.

Then if you want to call Israelis terrorists then both Palin and Obama are "pally" with terrorists, right? They both express support for Israel