[zenlogo]

Originally Posted by aussiegal

Given that most of the spending on the war actually benefits Americans (soldiers are paid and many of them would be unemployable otherwise, american firms are used to do everything under the sun in terms of the war effort etc) it is silly to keep bringing it up like it's the death knell of the Republican party.

It is this twisted "war is good for the economy" logic that scares sh*t out of world citizens. It certainly is good for some businesses, like Cheney’s Haliburton Corporation, but a viable employment program? Let's see, cost of war = 3 TRILLION dollars and counting, divide by troops in Iraq (130,000) = $25,000,000 per trooper. Instead of sending BillyBob to Iraq, we could have given each one a new humvee, gas for life and $24,000,000. dollars to spend in the good ‘ol USA or in the Wall Street Casinos (and saved the lives of 100,000 innocent Iraqies incidently). The cost of war is paid out of taxpayer’s pockets, that is $5000. per household… not good for the economy.

As to “going on about” Palin, it is evidence of McCain’s total lack of judgement and knee-jerk pandering to extreme right-wing evangelicals. You keep saying, “ I still can't for the life of me work out what his (Obama’s) policies are except 'change'”. You could spend a few minutes and read the policies here: Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Issues however, I suspect that his policies are not really relevant to your opinion.

[aussiegal]

Zenlogo, i won't bother responding to your post because i already responded to gilles exact same off the wall comment but i guess if you don't want to read what people say because you're more interested in having a go then you won't see what i actually meant.

Gilles, Palin's daughter is not Palin. Obama is Obama and HE chose to listen to his Minister. The equivalent would be his daughter choosing to attend a racist ministers church and then for him to be held accountable for it.

Either way, you crack me up. You've clearly drunk a lot of Kool aid.

If on the off chance Obama wins I'd love to be a fly on the wall on his first day of office. I bet it would go something like this - 'shit, where's the mike? where's the crowd? where's the applause?', do i have to do real work now? Get Clinton on the line?

[gilleshk]

You don't bother responding because there is no logical response except that Iraq's endeavour is one of the stupidest move ever made by an administration and all Palin can find is that it's God's work...

Wow... so by your twisted logic, Palin has no responsibility over her daughter's action but Obama is responsible for all that his preacher says? By the way, the fact that you call the man a racist doesn't make him one...

And once again, the democratic party is a heck of a lot more inclusive than the republicans so once again your argument makes very little sense.

In any case, my argument is that candidates won't really matter all that much, the economy will kill the republicans. You're the one mostly going on about candidates, I couldn't care less who they are since politicians are all corrupt and self absorbed anyway. I certainly don't think Obama is the great saviour but he's a lot less of an embarassment than Bush or Palin and he clearly has more intellectual depth than either of them as for integrity...well it's hard to find water in the desert. As for McCain, well he's an old steady horse kind of like Biden...

[zenlogo]

Originally Posted by aussiegal

Zenlogo, i won't bother responding to your post because i already responded to gilles exact same off the wall comment but i guess if you don't want to read what people say because you're more interested in having a go then you won't see what i actually meant.

Well having said you wont reply (in your reply), I WILL reply that I do read what people say, in fact I've read all of your posts on these forums. As to seeing what you meant, you’re right, I can’t follow your arguments at all.
Following a comment about war you say:
"Given that most of the spending on the war actually benefits Americans..." It would seem like a clear comment to me. Failing to address the replies and in response you expand:
"When the US is at war they certainly go on massive recruitment drives and therefore end up employing a lot more people than they otherwise would." You then go off on a tangent talking about Obama's bigoted minister and how Palin is a "brilliant choice".
When gileshk replies about the deficit and cost of the war, you reply with reiteration of your racist minister accusations and just to make sure we understand, you start talking about mortgage rates. As usual, when unable to respond, you resort to ad hominen attacks on the poster. As you admonished gileshk, you might try to "stay focused".

[Mat]

Originally Posted by aussiegal

If on the off chance Obama wins I'd love to be a fly on the wall on his first day of office. I bet it would go something like this - 'shit, where's the mike? where's the crowd? where's the applause?', do i have to do real work now? Get Clinton on the line?

I am no Barak supporter but why do people consider that McCain has more experience?

With now Palin on the Rep ticket, I do not believe that:

McCain + Palin has more experience than Obama+Biden....to me it is pretty much the same...

As for the fact that Obama is all talk but no action it is a little bit funny...in an election campaign, candidates are anyway all talk and no action (be it McCain or Obama)...action will come afterwards, in the office...

Bring back the debate to the IMPORTANT questions: Economy, Irak, Retirement....not STUPID topics such as Palin's baby or Obama reverent...

[fm7]

McCain has always sounded weak on the economy and the latest turn in the financial crisis will not help if. Obama doesn't sound that convincing either, but he has argument in his favour now that a lack of regulation and government controls fuelled the current crisis.

McCain has always had the edge on security issues and supporting "The Surge" was paying off for him. But, the latest news is saying the turnaround in Iraq was down to a number of factors, of which the surge was only one and maybe not the main player. Moreover, Bush's recent announcement about redeployments away from Iraq and towards Afghanistan support Obama's plans.

That's two big arguments that Obama could nail McCain with in the debates.

McCain needs to build on his momentum because as it stands, he is still a long way from safe. There's a very real possibility that his campaign has peaked and unless something drastic happens in the debates, it will come back to close with Obama just in front.

[pushan]

Nice to go through all the comments in this thread from all the knowledgeable people.

Unfortunately, I am an outsider, and not qualified to comment, but then, the US presidency affects everyone, doesn't it ?

My take on this is simple - American's (most of them at least) want change. They are frustrated with Bush one way or the other - Iraq war, economy and other issues included.

Obama is stressing change, but till now, hasn't made it very clear what the "change" constitutes in real terms (or if he has, his message is not going across clearly enough to the people who have to vote).

This is leaving quite a few people stuck in the middle - they are sure they don't want more of Bush, but ain't sure if Obama is the right alternative.

As for McCain, his take on the economy is down right stupid. And to pander to right wing extremists by bringing Palin to the fore is a cheap stunt - but guess what?! It might just work.

One thing is for sure, this will go right down to the wire

good stuff for a nice long running TV Soap opera

[gunsnroses]

Here's what a friend of mine told me - According to one of the prophecies of Nastradamus, the most powerful country will have a leader who'll be assassinated and the country will be taken over by a woman, who'll be responsible for WWIII.
According to this friend of mine, the country referred in the prophecy is USA, the assassinated leader is Mccain and the woman is Palin.

Dunno, about other things, but the things Mrs. Palin has been saying, it doesn't seem unlikely.

[Claire ex-ax]

Right, and Nostradamus has been so accurate on everything else...

[gilleshk]

Wow...now that's a scientific prediction... I don't think Palin could find the button if she had to push it! There will never be a WWIII...

Much better for the powers that be to stage wars where it doesn't hurt them and they can make money out of it.

There's no doubt the election will go down to the wire because the US is divided and there are just too many people that would vote one way or the other regardless of the candidates.

They're spending millions of dollars to essentially grab very few voters and states. That's one of the sickening ironies of the mega expensive US elections