All anyone needs to know in November

[Scott Campbell]

We had a good laugh with Clinton.

If you thought Bubba was funny, you would have loved Hillary. Fortunately Harlan endorsed her, and she lost.

Obama is telegenic and articulate - important qualities in a game show host. But he's starting to look like an empty suit to me - no depth.

Now McCain isn't exactly the best man for the job either. But as is the case in many elections, I think he's the lesser of two evils. He's no George.

This country is in serious, serious trouble. I think terror and the war are the least of our problems now. The credit markets here have completely shriveled up, and there is a lethal bunker mentality among lenders. I'm not even sure Republican leadership could fight our way out of this mess, but I fear an economic nuclear winter with Democratic leadership.

[Tarlam!]

Well, RG, see now you're pushing me on thin ice.

I don't think we get "free help" from the USA, at least not the German taxpayers. Maybe the rest of the free world pays nothing towards financing the wars that the US of A lead. Fact is, Germany almost financed Desert Storm. We had a huge row about it here.

Germany also had a leading role in ex-Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. And, we still do.

I am not really certain I was clear on what I was saying. But here it is again. The world needs leadership and the Free World has pretty much said, hey, that oval office guy/girl seems to be a good bet to lead.

That in itself is a remarkable achievement! I mean, you guys and girls were "colonies" 2 centuries ago and today, you lead the free world! An achievement matched by no one.

But, your President today leads the free world from a biased stance. Biased towards what is great for the USA and may only so-so for the rest. An arrogance that rubs people not American up the wrong way. I again repeat, not me. But I have visited your fine country 20 times and been privileged to work for bosses, American. I am not your average German/Australian/ Other Free world nation taxpayer.

W. Bush, when he's not being laughed at, is not very well liked.

You wanna talk 9/11, RG? O.K. I read reports where Belgian "society" were cocktailing the night of 9/11 and the Belgian high society people quipped how it served you right that terrorists attacked you. That is not my opinion AT ALL. I am merely highlighting how volatile the leadership of the free world is. I was disgusted at those remarks.

Put another way. I grew up especially under the Reagan influence. Believe me, when you elected a star of "b" grade movies, the world laughed. But, He was no laughing matter as he proved over and over again.

Reagan led the world to victory in the cold war in a way where we all knew who was leading, where we all willingly and gladly followed and where we could hold our heads up, proud to being the ass of the donkey and knowing the USA was the head.

We, the free world, have not had that kind of leadership since.

I know, only Americans will get to vote for their President. He/she is after all yours. But, he/she belongs to us a bit as well.

Today, we know very little about McCain. We know little about Obama, but we do know, Obama is so far away from w. Bush, we want him.

[retailguy]

Tar,

The goal wasn’t to push you onto thin ice. Sorry if it appeared that way. I do have a markedly different perspective than you do.

I agree that leadership is sorely lacking since Reagan. I am not a fan of McCain. I think he’s way less dangerous than Obama. In this world, I’ll take the less dangerous guy. In this country, no one dares run with strong views. He’s almost unelectable. There are few people of character willing to subject themselves to what this country describes as “politics” today.

But, please keep in mind that some of the folks in this room that are supporting your candidate also vilify Reagan. What he stood for, and what he believed in and the methods he used are very offensive to them. But with Reagan, in the end, results mattered.

Today, results don’t matter so much. It matters “how it looks” and “how it feels”. Truthfully, could you see the pundits comments today, when Reagan told Gorbachev to “tear down the wall”? Heck, the Senate Democrats would be talking impeachment!

If you look past what went wrong in Iraq, and look at what has gone right, if you look at most of the “terror” activity in Iraq is NOT done by Iraqi’s, if you listen to the Iraqi people and not what we’re spoon fed by the media, if you look at WHO is in Guantanamo Bay, and not whether or not they should be there, you can see progress. Maybe, if you’d stop believing everything you’re told, Bush might not be a laughing stock. Realistically, public opinion is too far gone for that.

But, if you believe that terrorists are evil, if you understand that the terror activity in Iraq is done by “foreigners”, not Iraqi people, HOW can you advocate leaving? Other than “feeling better” for a week, or a month, or maybe a year, what benefit does the world get from destabilizing Iraq? Vengence? Revenge? The ability for the liberal pundits to say they were right? Not much else, unfortunately.

Finally, the money issue. Are others paying the bills? Sure, small portions. Compare our costs to the rest of the world combined. Nothing in life is free, but for the rest of the world, this is ALMOST free. Look at our debt load Tar. Look at it. We’ve been there to help every other country in the world. Who is going to help us? NO ONE.

That’s what happens when you’re at the top of the heap. You are envied. You are judged. People aspire to be where you are. If for no other reason than that, the FREE WORLD CANNOT PICK OUR PRESIDENT.

I pray every day that Obama loses. I’ll also pray that you and others will one day see that before it is too late.

[Freak Out]

Just an FYI...Europe/Germany have been dealing with terrorism, homegrown and outside for many, many years. Saying the US has shielded them from it is debatable....unless you want to classify the USSR as a terrorist state. Both countries have worked well together for the most part protecting each other.

Reagan was a liberal in many cases. He signed the most liberal abortion law in the country while Governor of California and worked with the Democrats in Congress while President on many, many issues. The Dems in Congress respected him. But he was also sold on some very bad policy decisions by the people he had around him. Which almost cost him his job.

[retailguy]

Just an FYI...Europe/Germany have been dealing with terrorism, homegrown and outside for many, many years. Saying the US has shielded them from it is debatable....unless you want to classify the USSR as a terrorist state. Both countries have worked well together for the most part protecting each other.

Reagan was a liberal in many cases. He signed the most liberal abortion law in the country while Governor of California and worked with the Democrats in Congress while President on many, many issues. The Dems in Congress respected him. But he was also sold on some very bad policy decisions by the people he had around him. Which almost cost him his job.

True, they've been dealing with it much longer than we have. But in totality, they aren't any closer to a solution than we are. So, you can't claim much progress from their dealings, can you? Their actions are by default mostly reactionary, and this issue was getting far worse than it was better. Right now, it's largely contained to Iraq. It wasn't this way 5 years ago.

I wouldn't suspect that you or anyone else would argue that keeping the population of Guantanamo Bay locked away has reduced terrorist actions and terrorist threats - the downside is it has pissed other terrorists off, but there isn't a free lunch any way that you look at it. I think all of us can agree with that statement, even if you think the existence of Guantanamo Bay is a crime. If you keep them locked away, they can't plan attacks nor carry them out. This is my point towards reducing terrorism in the short term.

Here's the reality. You can't negotiate with these people. You can't pacify, or mollify them, you can't reason with them, and you can't meet any demand that they have, since their only demand is death. Until we accept that statement as a fact, not much will change. Since their goal is to wipe out "Western Civilization", we should all be on the same side here. Whether they wipe out the Germans or the Americans, or the Austrians, or the Russians, or the Austrailians they don't care. They'll take what they can get. A little debate on our side is healthy, but when we forget this basic premise, it gets dangerous very quickly. Obama gives me ZERO confidence that he gets this point. His insistence on leaving Iraq is a clear sign to me that he does not understand this premis.

History's revisionism of the Reagan years is well documented. My statement is probably easily provable by searching archives here and elsewhere. If we had more people with the fortitude of Reagan this country would be better off. Quite honestly, the fact Reagan didn't blink was as much a part of his success as his policies were.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So now we know that John McCain has been in the Senate a lot longer than Obama. Glad we got that cleared up.

It isn't just experience. Obama has been running for president almost from the moment he arrived in Washington. Once a politician is that close to the big prize, all of their comments and votes are calibrated.


And what did he do before being a U.S. Senator? Some law teaching. A community organizer. Illinois STate Senate. Not bad experience, but not adequate preparation to understood the ways of the world, business, government.

We really can't know who Obama is, he hasn't had to comment on many controversial issues while he was in a position of accountability. Would he have voted to authorize Bush in Iraq? Who knows.

You've commented that you expect Obama to govern as a centrist. MAybe, but hell, you have no reason to believe this.

Please elaborate on our current president's qualifications. 4 years as governor from a state in which the gov has some of the least power...yep, so much more than obama.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Please elaborate on our current president's qualifications. 4 years as governor from a state in which the gov has some of the least power...yep, so much more than obama.

Being governor of a large state is enough of a credential to run for president, in my view. A gov has to compromise, make decisions, commit his signature to a variety of legisation.

Clinton, Reagon, Carter were state governors. Bush the Elder had a long record in the executive and legislative branch.

OBama's situation is truly biazaare. I'm no historian, but I can't remember a President being nearly so unqualified. The comparison with Kennedy is silly, Kennedy had full terms in the Senate & House. Obama is a phenomena, he will probably shoot from the Illinois State Legislator to the Presidency in 4 years solely on the basis of his charm and novelty.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Please elaborate on our current president's qualifications. 4 years as governor from a state in which the gov has some of the least power...yep, so much more than obama.

Being governor of a large state is enough of a credential to run for president, in my view. A gov has to compromise, make decisions, commit his signature to a variety of legisation.

Clinton, Reagon, Carter were state governors. Bush the Elder had a long record in the executive and legislative branch.

OBama's situation is truly biazaare. I'm no historian, but I can't remember a President being nearly so unqualified. The comparison with Kennedy is silly, Kennedy had full terms in the Senate & House. Obama is a phenomena, he will probably shoot from the Illinois State Legislator to the Presidency in 4 years solely on the basis of his charm and novelty.

4 years from a state in which the gov has very little power. Sorry, i don't see it. And, a failure at everything he did prior. Plus a drunk and a drug user.

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

Experience: Ike was in the military. that ain't exactly someone who had far reaching compromise, policy making, etc.

Washington...um, where was the experience.

Lincoln was a state senator.

I'm with Andrew Sullivan...Obama represents the greatest rebranding of our country since RR.

[mraynrand]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

Spin away, dipshit. Who ever said.."best." It is just hilarious to watch you repeatedly twist and spin.

BTW, hard to be the best at something when you are 26 or so with no experience in that area.

Let's review:

1. Graduateded from an IVY..got in on merit.
2. Worked at BIC, etc. in NYC....no family connections.
3. Community Organizer/Director. Hmm, success:

a: Staff grew from 1 to 13
b: budget increased around 600 percent

4. Attended Harvard Law
5. Editor of Law Review as freshmen....pretty much the top position you can have while attending law school as freshmen.
6. Prez of Law Review.
7. Graduated Magna cum laude....please tell me that isn't success.
8. Book contract based on his election as Prez...hmm, they must know something that you don't.
9. U of Chitown recruited him to be on faculty. Yep, those prestigious schools surely like losers. Progressed in his career there from lecturer to senior lecturer.
10. Voter reg drive meets goal...leading Crains to put him as 40 under 40 powers. Yep, that wasn't a success.
11. Worked several years for private law firm...not fired or had it go under...contrary to current prez.
12. member of board of directors of several orgs.
13. Elected and reelected as state senator...yep, people always reelect.
14. Keynote address at Dem Convention...yep, got that by being unsuccessful.
15. In senate..junior member..still sponsored some bills and was on committees. But, what would you expect of a junior senator...please give me someone who was there for 2 years that was better...

16. Won his parties nomination from widely considered unbeatable and presumptive nominee.

I, and most of america, would call that being a success. Guess it pales in comparison to your life, but...don't we all.

[mraynrand]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

Spin away, dipshit. Who ever said.."best." It is just hilarious to watch you repeatedly twist and spin.

BTW, hard to be the best at something when you are 26 or so with no experience in that area.

Let's review:

1. Graduateded from an IVY..got in on merit.
2. Worked at BIC, etc. in NYC....no family connections.
3. Community Organizer/Director. Hmm, success:

a: Staff grew from 1 to 13
b: budget increased around 600 percent

4. Attended Harvard Law
5. Editor of Law Review as freshmen....pretty much the top position you can have while attending law school as freshmen.
6. Prez of Law Review.
7. Graduated Magna cum laude....please tell me that isn't success.
8. Book contract based on his election as Prez...hmm, they must know something that you don't.
9. U of Chitown recruited him to be on faculty. Yep, those prestigious schools surely like losers. Progressed in his career there from lecturer to senior lecturer.
10. Voter reg drive meets goal...leading Crains to put him as 40 under 40 powers. Yep, that wasn't a success.
11. Worked several years for private law firm...not fired or had it go under...contrary to current prez.
12. member of board of directors of several orgs.
13. Elected and reelected as state senator...yep, people always reelect.
14. Keynote address at Dem Convention...yep, got that by being unsuccessful.
15. In senate..junior member..still sponsored some bills and was on committees. But, what would you expect of a junior senator...please give me someone who was there for 2 years that was better...

16. Won his parties nomination from widely considered unbeatable and presumptive nominee.

I, and most of america, would call that being a success. Guess it pales in comparison to your life, but...don't we all.

I didn't deny his success. I just filled in the details that a radical lefty like yourself wouldn't mention - or would actively obfuscate. I actually don't have any problems with his positive accomplishments - just with his radical leftists ideology and his current attempts to confuse the electorate as a policy chameleon.

BTW, you're slipping - 'Dipshit?' Such reparte! You're obviously a skilled linguist!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

He was the best community organizer Chicago ever saw. Except according to those who worked with him. He was also a great success as U.S. Senator. All the things he accomplished! He was a great success getting monies for his terrorist buddies. And he was a success prizing monies out of his multiple-felon buddy Tony Reszko. Barak Obama: A success at ever level.

Spin away, dipshit. Who ever said.."best." It is just hilarious to watch you repeatedly twist and spin.

BTW, hard to be the best at something when you are 26 or so with no experience in that area.

Let's review:

1. Graduateded from an IVY..got in on merit.
2. Worked at BIC, etc. in NYC....no family connections.
3. Community Organizer/Director. Hmm, success:

a: Staff grew from 1 to 13
b: budget increased around 600 percent

4. Attended Harvard Law
5. Editor of Law Review as freshmen....pretty much the top position you can have while attending law school as freshmen.
6. Prez of Law Review.
7. Graduated Magna cum laude....please tell me that isn't success.
8. Book contract based on his election as Prez...hmm, they must know something that you don't.
9. U of Chitown recruited him to be on faculty. Yep, those prestigious schools surely like losers. Progressed in his career there from lecturer to senior lecturer.
10. Voter reg drive meets goal...leading Crains to put him as 40 under 40 powers. Yep, that wasn't a success.
11. Worked several years for private law firm...not fired or had it go under...contrary to current prez.
12. member of board of directors of several orgs.
13. Elected and reelected as state senator...yep, people always reelect.
14. Keynote address at Dem Convention...yep, got that by being unsuccessful.
15. In senate..junior member..still sponsored some bills and was on committees. But, what would you expect of a junior senator...please give me someone who was there for 2 years that was better...

16. Won his parties nomination from widely considered unbeatable and presumptive nominee.

I, and most of america, would call that being a success. Guess it pales in comparison to your life, but...don't we all.

I didn't deny his success. I just filled in the details that a radical lefty like yourself wouldn't mention - or would actively obfuscate. I actually don't have any problems with his positive accomplishments - just with his radical leftists ideology and his current attempts to confuse the electorate as a policy chameleon.

BTW, you're slipping - 'Dipshit?' Such reparte! You're obviously a skilled linguist!

Spin away..you didn't deny? LOL. You didn't mention, just detract and confuse by substituting "best" for success. Is that what you learned at the goebbels institute of propaganda?

Why would i mention? I didn't mention specifics...noted only that he was successful. Must be a hard concept for you to figure out.

Linguist: Not slipping, just using appropriate term for you. I guess i coulda called you a cretin..but, that would be giving you a bit more credit than you are due.

Thought you weren't responding to me after the beatdown i gave you. Can't actually believe that you woulda taken the time to bring a hastily written post to a professor. And, of course, didn't mention taking your post and having him/her analyze it. Pretty much sums up your modus operandi.

Rare feat..being both sad and pathetic.

[sheepshead]

scary

[mraynrand]

Thought you weren't responding to me after the beatdown i gave you. Can't actually believe that you woulda taken the time to bring a hastily written post to a professor. And, of course, didn't mention taking your post and having him/her analyze it. Pretty much sums up your modus operandi.

Beatdown? You basically gave me a Wikipedia report on Obama's life. I know all the details already. I didn't find the grammer school report edifying. Having a professor read it wouldn't have been anywhere as amusing as your 'essay' on Rand, which I keep around for laughs. The point is that you regard Obama's track record as one of uninterrupted success. He went to law school and became a politician. Essentially, he really never had much of a real job, outside academia and politics. But that's true of a lot of politicians, and a lot of academia - they live sheltered lives in many ways.

What concerns me is what Obama really believes, when he can be pinned down. For example, he originally did NOT understand the basic principle that raising taxes reduces tax receipts (even though a Harvard educated man should know that it worked for Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, etc.) When informed that revenues would decrease, he claimed that he would raise taxes anyway, because it was 'fair.' Of course, he doesn't understand that raising taxes on businesses will cause them to flee the country - this from a guy who pledges to keep businesses in the U.S. - and unilaterally change NAFTA at the same time (Oh, but he changd that view already - see other examples below) But that's rare - seeing a glimpse that he would willingly harm the nation because something conflicted with his Rawls-like view of fairness. In other instances, he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional - except not now. He was against faith-based initiatives - except not anymore. He was for a direct draw down of forces in Iraq - except not anymore (he'll meet with the joint chiefs first!). It will be interesting to see how long it takes before he finds a way to say he was for the surge all along. What does Obama really believe? Who will change his mind when he's in office? That's what I care about. Not whether he, like thousands of other meretricious sycophants, are able to graduate law school with honors and become societal parasites (e.g. politicians).

And what do you stand for Tyrone? What do you actually care about? Fr what cause would you take up a rifle and risk your life? Would you defend me, a fellow American, against a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of anything? The answers aren't on Wikipedia. Even though I disagree heartily with guys like you, I'd still defend you against real enemies of the U.S.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Thought you weren't responding to me after the beatdown i gave you. Can't actually believe that you woulda taken the time to bring a hastily written post to a professor. And, of course, didn't mention taking your post and having him/her analyze it. Pretty much sums up your modus operandi.

Beatdown? You basically gave me a Wikipedia report on Obama's life. I know all the details already. I didn't find the grammer school report edifying. Having a professor read it wouldn't have been anywhere as amusing as your 'essay' on Rand, which I keep around for laughs. The point is that you regard Obama's track record as one of uninterrupted success. He went to law school and became a politician. Essentially, he really never had much of a real job, outside academia and politics. But that's true of a lot of politicians, and a lot of academia - they live sheltered lives in many ways.

What concerns me is what Obama really believes, when he can be pinned down. For example, he originally did NOT understand the basic principle that raising taxes reduces tax receipts (even though a Harvard educated man should know that it worked for Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, etc.) When informed that revenues would decrease, he claimed that he would raise taxes anyway, because it was 'fair.' Of course, he doesn't understand that raising taxes on businesses will cause them to flee the country - this from a guy who pledges to keep businesses in the U.S. - and unilaterally change NAFTA at the same time (Oh, but he changd that view already - see other examples below) But that's rare - seeing a glimpse that he would willingly harm the nation because something conflicted with his Rawls-like view of fairness. In other instances, he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional - except not now. He was against faith-based initiatives - except not anymore. He was for a direct draw down of forces in Iraq - except not anymore (he'll meet with the joint chiefs first!). It will be interesting to see how long it takes before he finds a way to say he was for the surge all along. What does Obama really believe? Who will change his mind when he's in office? That's what I care about. Not whether he, like thousands of other meretricious sycophants, are able to graduate law school with honors and become societal parasites (e.g. politicians).

And what do you stand for Tyrone? What do you actually care about? Fr what cause would you take up a rifle and risk your life? Would you defend me, a fellow American, against a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of a terrorist? Do you have an absolute definition of anything? The answers aren't on Wikipedia. Even though I disagree heartily with guys like you, I'd still defend you against real enemies of the U.S.

Yes, i give you beatdowns everytime you post.

I find it sad and pathetic that you would call my post an essay and then bring it to a prof. I also find it..well, typicall that you wouldn't show him your response. LOL

obama: Again, that is success by any standard. For you to imply anything else is hilarious.

His views: Should i contrast them with McCain's flip flops? Ooops. If we wanna discuss econ...obama may not know much, but infinitely more than McCain. As for troop withdrawls..um, the situation has changed since he made his pronouncement. Should he not reevaluate?

And, what is the point of discussing things when you just spin. Obama wasnt' against faith based.

Me: Why do you care? As for what you would do...i could care less..and more importanly, you aren't doing it..so, it is all talk.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm fairly confident that Obama will self-destruct to such a degree that even the leftist mainstream media won't be able to save him in the eyes of the electorate.

What troubles me is what Tarlam--ordinarily a sane and rational poster wrote about European and possibly other foreign views of America. My first reaction, of course, is the hell with them. Who gives a shit what they think anyway. Realistically, though, although America doesn't NEED the support of foreigners, harmony with the relatively civilized portion of the world--those generally practicing freedom, representative democracy, and capitalism--is better than the absence of it.

Tarlam, as with virtually every other perceived problem of America, the media--the sinister leftist mainstream media--is primarily to blame. European perceptions of America are shaped by OUR media, both in a direct sense and in an indirect sense through foreign medias parrotting the crap spewed by our own left-saturated media assholes.

The substance of this discussion was handled pretty well by retailguy--America, in fact, DOES have the moral high ground, and both is and has been for the better part of a century, responsible for saving the world from falling into a new dark age of tyranny, depravity, poverty, and ignorance. I, of course, refer to Nazism, Communism, and now radical Islam.

Over and above that, however, I see a distinct trend in Europe toward the light--toward support for America and effective responsible national policies. Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany both got elected touting a pro-American, even pro-Bush stance. Denmark and most of the former Soviet bloc countries are staunchly pro-American--people, not merely government. Do you disagree with the accuracy of that, Tarlam? I know first hand that the Philippines and several other countries in that part of the world are solidly in our corner. Latin America seems pretty well adjusted too--minus 2 or 3 countries that Chavez has managed to contaminate.

I see the whole perceived anti-American outlook as just another in a long line of bogus demagogic crap put out by our own sick America-hating media.

[Harlan Huckleby]

years from a state in which the gov has very little power. Sorry, i don't see it. And, a failure at everything he did prior. Plus a drunk and a drug user.

I'm not going to defend how Bush turned out. But he was chief executive of the third largest state, I think for 5 years. That's serious management experience.

Obama at least has been a success at every level of his life. An achiever.

So has Oprah.

Experience: Ike was in the military. that ain't exactly someone who had far reaching compromise, policy making, etc.

Oh come on, he managed the War in Europe. That ain't exactly running a Dairy Queen. Generals can have good management preparation, and the military is very political. He served in a political role.

Washington...um, where was the experience.

Good Lord! Don't you think his efforts to fanangle a seperation from Britian involved a little leadership and political skill? This one is ridiculous.

Lincoln was a state senator..

On paper, this comparison presents your strongest case. But Lincoln was a freak. Those Lincoln-Douglass debates were 4 years before his presidential run. He was already a mature and brilliant thinker at that point.
I watched Obama in the debates. He got better throughout the primaries, but he is shallow. Very glib. Don't talk to me about Lincoln.

I'm with Andrew Sullivan...Obama represents the greatest rebranding of our country since RR.

Ya, I see this as a potential advantage of an OBama presidency. He is admired around the world because he is black, charismatic, sends the signal that the U.S. is an evil force in Iraq and he aims to extract the evil, and he has a cute smile. What's not for a foreigner to like?

[Tarlam!]

Tex,

I think you nailed it with commending Retailguy for his most delicate handling of my posts - thanks RG, you showed me a hell of a lot of respect!

Tex, you ask me if I think you've got your facts wrong. No, I don't think you have. In fact, the one thing I admire most about you is your fact based posting.

I want to go on record as being an arch conservative. ARCH. I have noticed that liberal in America is a dirty word for conservatives. That's kinda interesting, because in Australia, The Liberal Party are the conservatives and in Germany they are, too. Albeit in Germany, they struggle to be the 3rd largest Party.

I would really hate to be misunderstood here. My position is pretty simple, but probably offensive and I'm sorry for that.

The USA provides the Leader of the Free World. I and many many other, live in the Free World. We simply have no say in Our Leader. You Americans do. Choose wisely, for all of us.

[mraynrand]

I'm with Andrew Sullivan...Obama represents the greatest rebranding of our country since RR.

Ya, I see this as a potential advantage of an OBama presidency. He is admired around the world because he is black, charismatic, sends the signal that the U.S. is an evil force in Iraq and he aims to extract the evil, and he has a cute smile. What's not for a foreigner to like?

I agree with Andrew Sullivan as well. Reagan rebranded the US as a moral force - reminding the world what the US stood for - Reagan was direct and succinct: the Soviet Union was evil. Barak stands with the World's left, that says the US is the evil in the world. The US is the immoral force that invades and occupies countries, solely for oil and corporate wealth, slaughtering civilians indiscriminantly as we go. Funded and supported by the most rabid of US lefties - most significantly MoveOn.org - who repeatedly support the notion that the US under Bush is the world's greatest evil - it really matters not so much what Barak himself thinks (because of his changes in almost every core position, we have no idea what he personally stands for) - we have to look at his support base. Barak represents the far-left, anti-Reagan in the country - the United States is evil, the influence and power of the US must be diminished , and the socialist left in the world are to be emulated. That others don't recognize this, and see him as various manifestations of a savior, is a testament to his skill (success, you can argue) as a politician.

[sheepshead]

Bigguns, While I respect your right to post away on here, it is very clear that you are ill equipped to comment on the political process and the background of candidates past or present. I have taken the time to answer your same comments on another thread to no avail. Why don't you take a little time during this process and educate yourself with a little history? The branches of government (state and federal) and their functions. This presidential election can be a could education for you. I invite you to properly delve into the process.

Best,

SheepsHead