U.S. 2008 Election

[Darth_Rob]

My beloved governor

 

So yeah, I didn't want to pop this into the randomness thread, and figured this was the closest to a "political topics" thread we had. So yeah, my governor is some sort of "pimp" or "player" or something. I dont think all the facts are clear yet, but something about the NY governor and a prostitution ring...

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

I plan on actually reading the rest of the thread sometime when it's not 4:45 in the morning. I really just skimmed most of it.

 

That being said, I'm a firm Obama supporter. I would like nothing more than to see him win first the nomination, and then the election.

[DarthTex]

... That being said, I'm a firm Obama supporter...

Don't worry Mitth, there's still time to change your mind

[Lord_La_forge]

Is it even possible that Obama will be the president of the USA, if he wins the elections?

I hope, most of you guys understand this question...

[DarthTex]

Is it even possible that Obama will be the president of the USA, if he wins the elections?

I hope, most of you guys understand this question...

That's a good question LLF. I think (theoretically) it could be possible, but ... I'm not sure if it is the "right time". The Democratic Party convention will decide the first hurdle (Billiary Clinton or Barak Hussein Osama). Then the big choice will come November 4th.

[Darth_Rob]

I still believe that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be the next President. Unfortunately, I dont think the Republican party is very popular right now.

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

Why do you support the Republican Party, Tex?

[DarthTex]

Why do you support the Republican Party, Tex?

Mostly because they're conservative, especially compared to today's liberal Democrats. Today's Republican party is not the Republican party like back in the days of Ronald Reagan. Today's Republicans practically look like yesteryears Democrats. So that should show you how much today's Democrats have slid to the socialist left.

 

I believe the Federal gov't should be as small as possible, and concentrate on the things that impact the country as a whole. The states should take more responsibility for their citizens, as they should know the needs of their own people better than the national Congress back in D.C. People need to be more responsible for themselves and not rely on the gov't to take care of them (gov't officials only care about their power, money and getting re-elected; and people want them to take care of their welfare when they get old? That's crazy). How did this country survive all of those years before FDR started Social Security? They did it with hard work, good family, friends and community. Now people are lazy getting welfare, collecting unemployment and waiting to get their Social Security. Why work hard, when others will work hard for you (meaning they work hard, get taxed to high heaven, and then the gov't gives their money away)? Social Security should be privatized into IRA's; Disability & Medicare should be scaled back. I know not every single person in the country can survive on this plan, but the majority of these people can fend for themselves but they don't want to.

 

Today's liberal Democrats want to tax the rich to pay for their programs to take care of the poor. The poor in turn receive all of this and in return vote liberal Democrats in power; that's the only thing needed to "repay" them. The more you tax "the rich" (people and companies who work their arses off) the more likely they will leave this country for somewhere else. A lot of businesses are moving overseas because the taxes are cheaper. When they leave, the gov't gets the tax on zero company revenue, plus people are now laid off from their jobs. Not smart in my opinion. Currently the top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of the taxes; the top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of the taxes; the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes; and the bottom 50% fo wage earners pay 3% of the taxes! And the Democrats want to RAISE taxes on the rich! The "rich" are the people who buy things, spend their money to keep the ecomony rolling. They get higher taxes, they slow down spending on buying things, then stores have layoffs and everybody suffers.

 

Basically it comes down to personal responsibility (Democrats don't want you to have it, and Republican do), and this country's citizens need a good dose of it.

 

Sorry for the rant.

[Darth_Rob]

Why do you support the Republican Party, Tex?

 

He could have simply said "I'm from Texas"

 

@Tex- Amen to what you say about lazy people. Thats why I am against universal health care. Im gonna be using private health care, so why should I pay my own personal costs as well as others so they can get it for free.

[Jahled]

Why do you support the Republican Party, Tex?

Mostly because they're conservative, especially compared to today's liberal Democrats. Today's Republican party is not the Republican party like back in the days of Ronald Reagan. Today's Republicans practically look like yesteryears Democrats. So that should show you how much today's Democrats have slid to the socialist left.

 

I believe the Federal gov't should be as small as possible, and concentrate on the things that impact the country as a whole. The states should take more responsibility for their citizens, as they should know the needs of their own people better than the national Congress back in D.C. People need to be more responsible for themselves and not rely on the gov't to take care of them (gov't officials only care about their power, money and getting re-elected; and people want them to take care of their welfare when they get old? That's crazy). How did this country survive all of those years before FDR started Social Security? They did it with hard work, good family, friends and community. Now people are lazy getting welfare, collecting unemployment and waiting to get their Social Security. Why work hard, when others will work hard for you (meaning they work hard, get taxed to high heaven, and then the gov't gives their money away)? Social Security should be privatized into IRA's; Disability & Medicare should be scaled back. I know not every single person in the country can survive on this plan, but the majority of these people can fend for themselves but they don't want to.

 

Today's liberal Democrats want to tax the rich to pay for their programs to take care of the poor. The poor in turn receive all of this and in return vote liberal Democrats in power; that's the only thing needed to "repay" them. The more you tax "the rich" (people and companies who work their arses off) the more likely they will leave this country for somewhere else. A lot of businesses are moving overseas because the taxes are cheaper. When they leave, the gov't gets the tax on zero company revenue, plus people are now laid off from their jobs. Not smart in my opinion. Currently the top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of the taxes; the top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of the taxes; the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes; and the bottom 50% fo wage earners pay 3% of the taxes! And the Democrats want to RAISE taxes on the rich! The "rich" are the people who buy things, spend their money to keep the economy rolling. They get higher taxes, they slow down spending on buying things, then stores have layoffs and everybody suffers.

 

Basically it comes down to personal responsibility (Democrats don't want you to have it, and Republican do), and this country's citizens need a good dose of it.

 

Sorry for the rant.

 

No apology needed Tex, fella!

 

It's a hard post to reply to, given I am not a North American, but feel I do not necessarily share your perception of your own nation's political climate. I have huge admiration for Reagan, given he more or less bankrupted the old Soviet Union in economic terms by being steadfast, and ended the twentieth centuries ideological argument between capitalism vs communism. The 'glorious party' lost, mainly because humans do not want to be treated like some kind of collective for the good of the masses given we are ultimately individuals in life, and have our own unique ambitions, potentials, and capabilities. For the likes of Pol Pot, Lenin, or Mao to deny that to populations was an evil, and a scar on the twentieth century. Life is not going to be some kind of Star Trek Federation utopia for a fair while yet, try and enforce it on a population and they will in time turn to hate it, like they have the communist world over, or be silenced with that lovely thing called the unique individual human brain, brainwashed into suppression in places like North Korea.

 

I like the word 'liberal,' and for the record regard myself as one. I work with a gay guy which I don't find a problem with, seem to find an influx of skilled Eastern European immigrants better than the UK's own useless working class (who by and large should seek permission to breed by filling out a long and lengthy form before they can reproduce, given all they seem to is refuse to do an once of work and live off the state smoking dope and drinking super-strength ale.) What I don't like is the language I hear from right-wing 'shock-jocks' concerning politics from North America, Neocons, and the religious right that seems to have swept into the Republican party, at the very least as a major influence factor. That is where one perception of when you said: 'Today's Republicans practically look like yesteryears Democrats' seems so alien. The rest of the democratic West recoils at the antics of these contributors and factors in the Republican Party.

 

Most of Europe didn't want to go to war with Iraq, because it didn't feel any actual risk from these non-existent weapons of mass-destruction, despite their populations being much closer than North America's, and any logical reason why Saddam would unleash mass destruction on economies he was dependent upon, not being a religious nutter.

 

Anyway, i'm getting lost. I don't like a lot of what I see on the centre left, especially anti-war muppets who go on and on about Iraq as if nothing can be salvaged from this grim afair, and don't seem to be out yelling loudly about Sudan or anywhere else especially if it doesn't involve USA or Israel, being muppets. But am very uneasy with what I presently perceive the Republican party as. Despite McCain. Which is what is quite ironic.

[SOCL]

I would have stayed out of this if not for:

 

Barak Hussein Osama

That's call fear-mongering, Tex.

 

 

As for your question LaForge, I do not agree at all with what Tex says. This nonsense about it "not being the right time" and so forth is a load of conservative rhetoric we hear which I suspect has some rooting (but perhaps for not all conservatives) in racism or simply a fear of minorities. The fact the front-running candidates for the Democratic Party are from two minority groups (i.e. female and Black/African-American) says a great deal about the progression of politics in this country. This country has been run by White male politicians since its founding and its long since been time at least one of those adjectives changed. By the reaction I get from people in the airport where I work (ironically enough, Ronald Reagan/Washington National Airport in DC), I get the feeling most of them haven't collectively seen a brown-skinned person since their great-grandparents bought one, figuratively speaking, and in general its a matter of utter ignorance. This doesn't excuse their attitude at all, especially towards my coworkers (I am the only Latino at my job, working with one White fellow, a manager who is half Latina and half White, and the rest are Black), but it helps to understand just how far the people of this country still have to come as whole. The election of a Black man to the Presidency isn't just a boost to all minorities in general, but it also a boost to American politics, both domestically and internationally. It's difficult to convince the hillbillies and fools in Tennessee and Kentucky (like the guy who lived across the street from me in Tennessee told me to "go back to my own country" every time he saw me) that a Black man or any other minority can do anything good and productive for the country, so the blatant "show-of-force", if you will, in something like the Presidential elections should push home the point that the old ways of their grandfathers cannot continue without some inevitable change. The Civil Rights Movement wouldn't have been so publicly successful if not for the sort of wide-spread media coverage it received, as well as the media coverage the racist reactionary elements in the country received, too. This helped most people realize their own, if subtle racist feelings and fears and helped change a great portion of society in a much more progressive direction. The election of someone like Barrack Obama to the Presidency will only further this cause.

 

Additionally, around the world, for reasons I listed above, the United States is seen as an utterly White, racist nation run by nothing by rich White men. The very prospect that a Black man could make a strong bid for the Presidency has done a great deal to calm and ease feelings around the world, so what sort of effect do you think it would have to have a Black man elected President? That alone opens doors and possibilities that another White President could not, and Hillary, despite her international acclaim, does not have this sort of effect. The world has already seen successful female chief-executives (in Britain and Germany, to name two off hand) and the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutou in Pakistan shows the power women have achieved (though they certainly have a long way to go before they are true equals to men in politics, and by this I mean before the men in charge realize women are equals). Ethnic minorities are just as far behind, if not more so. In most other countries, the prospect of an ethnic minority become chief executive is enough to get the extremely reactionary elements out in force to show their utter disdain. I'm grateful that in this country organizations like the KKK and the like are kept down and are generally seen for what they are: the lowest of the lowest scum of the Earth. Still, this hasn't stopped numerous elements of this sort of racist reactionary group start fear-mongering campaigns, stating that Barrack Obama is a Muslim for instance (which he is not, though this honestly shouldn't matter in a free country like the USA) or flashing photos of him in traditional Somali garb in order to insinuate some alien look about him. The fact these elements even consider playing off these bigot fears says a great deal about Americans in general, feelings which could help be quelled with a Black man (or any other ethnic minority) in Office.

 

I'm sure I have more, but I'm worried I could start repeating myself.

[Eagle]

People need to be more responsible for themselves and not rely on the gov't to take care of them (gov't officials only care about their power, money and getting re-elected; and people want them to take care of their welfare when they get old? That's crazy). How did this country survive all of those years before FDR started Social Security? They did it with hard work, good family, friends and community. Now people are lazy getting welfare, collecting unemployment and waiting to get their Social Security. Why work hard, when others will work hard for you (meaning they work hard, get taxed to high heaven, and then the gov't gives their money away)? Social Security should be privatized into IRA's; Disability & Medicare should be scaled back. I know not every single person in the country can survive on this plan, but the majority of these people can fend for themselves but they don't want to.

 

@Tex- Amen to what you say about lazy people. Thats why I am against universal health care. Im gonna be using private health care, so why should I pay my own personal costs as well as others so they can get it for free.

 

I had to read this twice to be sure that I´ve read it right.

 

I´m fully aware that you people in the US are forced to pay every kind of insurrance by yourself. But I hate statements like "people who get welfare are automatically lazy"! Because I just saw too much. I agree to a certain point that there are in fact people who are lazy and just want to benefit from welfare, but their number is rather small. Most people want to work if they would be able to. Most people need welfare because they are sick, disabled or just can´t get a job to pay all their needs. Saying people who get welfare are lazy is just right wing propaganda. We´ve had the same propaganda over here a couple of years ago, but now people get aware that things just can go bad. People who believe in such kind of propaganda seem not to know anybody who got in such a situation. Otherwise they wouldn´t howl with the wolfes.

 

I really hope you two guys get never in such a situation where you need to get any kind of welfare.

 

We´ve got a system where everybody has to pay for health insurrance in order to solidarity. Those who earn more money pay more than those who don´t earn that much. Both groups get the same medical treatment. That´s a good system which works here since ages. Nobody should die just because he isn´t able to pay for his medication.

 

But btw you guys all want to vote for a special candidate. Some seem to vote because they like that guy or they won´t vote because they simply dislike that guy. Others just vote for a special candidate just because they allways vote for the same party, no matter if it turns out to be a good choice or not.

 

A couple of months ago I´ve watched some vids of some of the candidates to get knowledge for what everybody is fighting for. But soon I got very disappointed about the fact that nearly everybody was talking about just the same, no matter if democrate or republican. They just talked about "ending the war on terror, the terror and the terrorists, bring the terrorists to justice" etc. etc. Of course that´s a very important subject. But I also wanted to know what those candidates have in mind to change for the people in the US. I´m pretty sure there are lots of other problems which need a good solution. But maybe they simply haven´t got one. That´s why they allways repeat the same propaganda.

 

"Hey, vote for me! I´m republican! Nothing else matters!"

"Hey, hello, vote for me! I´m a democrat! Nothing else matters!"

"No, no, vote for me! I´m a democrat and I would be the first female president!"

"Nooo, don´t listen to them! I would be the very first black president!"

 

Sorry, but I´ve never heard anything what these guys want to change. I´m sure any of those candidates would do a good job. But they just telling some parols and that seems to be enough for the people. I just don´t see any substance. For example Obama allways talks about a big change if he would be in power. So what would it actually look like? The change of the presidents colour of skin isn´t just enough.

 

I hope you get my point of view and don´t see this post as an insult.

[Darth_Rob]

I totally see where you're coming from Eagle. I guess that I am more in favor of private donation than a set tax. Like, my ideal system would scrutinize a lot more in order to make sure no one abuses it, and would be funded mainly by private contribution rather than through taxes. Rather than raising taxes and what not, encourage the wealthier Americans at home to contribute to society by donating. One of my biggest concerns is that I don't think a 19-year old college student who works part time should be having to pay to help lift society's burden. Thus, one of the reasons I am against Hillary and Obama is because I am against universal health care, which is probably the second biggest topic they talk about next to terror.

 

So what Im saying is this:

-Fix the system that is already in place. Make sure only those who truly need it are on there. Then Im more willing to help out.

-Change the system so that the majority of the program is funded through private donation rather than taxes. Lower taxes and encourage private donations from the upper-middle class bracket.

-Change the system so that individuals in high school-college do not pay into it through taxes.

[SOCL]

We´ve got a system where everybody has to pay for health insurrance in order to solidarity. Those who earn more money pay more than those who don´t earn that much. Both groups get the same medical treatment. That´s a good system which works here since ages. Nobody should die just because he isn´t able to pay for his medication.

I have a friend who also worked in the airport who broke her arm not too long ago while on the job. Unfortunately, because she isn't a full-time status employee (she still works 40+ hours a week, she just isn't signed on as full-time), she isn't covered by Workman's Compensation, so she had to rely on her health insurance. Because of the small amount of money she makes, she was only able to get her arm set and casted, but was unable to pay for the physical therapy. Since then, she has a great deal of trouble using her right hand. When I asked her about it, she simply said, "I couldn't afford to pay for the physical therapy and meds and eat at the same time." So she had to choose between two very important matters. Additionally, she makes just too much to be considered for welfare, so she is stuck in that loophole of thousands, maybe even millions, who make too little for good health insurance, but too much to be assisted by welfare. I promise you, too, I would personally punch out the first person to say she is lazy. It's because of situations like this that I thoroughly like the broader European health system, but especially the German one, as Eagle outlined. Those who make more money pay more money, those who make less money pay less money, and everyone is covered to the same degree. And I know of numerous other examples on a personal level (not just stuff I read or hear about), and it makes it apparent this is an increasing problem. That is why I support socialized health care.

[DarthTex]

I like the word 'liberal,' and for the record regard myself as one. I work with a gay guy which I don't find a problem with

J, your "European liberal" and my "Republican liberal" aren't equivalent. I'm glad you have no problem working with a gay guy, I have no personal grudges against gay people at all; it's their choice. Republicans aren't black/white stormtrooper types killing all those that are different.

 

 

I would have stayed out of this if not for:

Barak Hussein Osama

That's call fear-mongering, Tex.

No SOCL, that's called baiting; hook, line & sinker

 

 

As for your question LaForge, I do not agree at all with what Tex says. This nonsense about it "not being the right time" and so forth is a load of conservative rhetoric we hear which I suspect has some rooting (but perhaps for not all conservatives) in racism or simply a fear of minorities. The fact the front-running candidates for the Democratic Party are from two minority groups (i.e. female and Black/African-American) says a great deal about the progression of politics in this country. This country has been run by White male politicians since its founding and its long since been time at least one of those adjectives changed.

Ah, the young liberal brainwashing propoganda. I'll put this to bed with one person: Condoleezza Rice (she's a double minority; female & black). I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over McCain. It's not the sex or race SOCL, it's the platform. And "conservative" works best in my opinion.

 

 

It's difficult to convince the hillbillies and fools in Tennessee and Kentucky

Now who's being steoretyical . I have relatives in Kentucky. Say that to their face and you'd be shot!

 

 

I´m fully aware that you people in the US are forced to pay every kind of insurrance by yourself. But I hate statements like "people who get welfare are automatically lazy"! Because I just saw too much. I agree to a certain point that there are in fact people who are lazy and just want to benefit from welfare, but their number is rather small.

Small is relative; the US has less than 5% unemployment. The amount considered "lazy" (IMO) is larger than you think Eagle.

 

 

Those who make more money pay more money, those who make less money pay less money, and everyone is covered to the same degree. ... That is why I support socialized health care.

Spoken like a true socialist. Where's the incentive for people to work harder? If I work 10 hours of overtime in a 40 hour work week (25% increase) and I only get 10% more pay just because I made more money, then I won't work OT anymore. If I want to give it away, then that should be my choice and not the government's. I work hard for my money. All those people who work their arse off in school or at work get penalized just because John Doe was too damn lazy to do his schoolwork, or got a college degree in basic basket weaving and doesn't make much money, I have to subsidize! Screw that. That's why Darwin was born. That's why some people become doctor's, surgeons, specialists, plus other careers. These people go to school for many years, rack up large school debts, so when they get a job it will pay them a lot of money. Setting a broken arm for somebody isn't different depending on the size of your bank account; a broken bone is a broken bone. If you want fairer treatment, then talk to the those in charge of setting the price, and the insurance companies that (IMO) scam everybody's money. Otherwise have your socialist gov't print up diplomas for everyone and pass them out, telling people what job they need to do whether they like it or not (kind of sounds like the ol' Soviet Union).

 

This is why I usually skip these topics; the responses are way too long and take up way too much of my time

[Eagle]

I´m fully aware that you people in the US are forced to pay every kind of insurrance by yourself. But I hate statements like "people who get welfare are automatically lazy"! Because I just saw too much. I agree to a certain point that there are in fact people who are lazy and just want to benefit from welfare, but their number is rather small.

Small is relative; the US has less than 5% unemployment. The amount considered "lazy" (IMO) is larger than you think Eagle.

Gimme proof.

 

No, you don´t have to. Because I don´t trust any statistics, though I know how tricky they are in providing us our statistics about unemployment in germany. Which they state is decreasing. But in fact they just put people into either some further training or in outsourced job-agencies. In both cases they don´t count as unemployed than. I´m pretty sure that our german authorities took that from some similar model from another country from far beyond the ocean, like they do most of the time.

[Jahled]

I like the word 'liberal,' and for the record regard myself as one. I work with a gay guy which I don't find a problem with

J, your "European liberal" and my "Republican liberal" aren't equivalent. I'm glad you have no problem working with a gay guy, I have no personal grudges against gay people at all; it's their choice. Republicans aren't black/white stormtrooper types killing all those that are different.

 

Observed, I think we agreed our use of the word differs each side of the pond, though it does make me frown if 'being open to change' is something so radical if you look at the definition of the word. Surely this goes against economic entrepreneurs in the spirit of capitalism? Our interpretation of the word differs somewhat, I guess

 

For the record I would like to point out Michael ate half the Swiss Roll I bought for the office today, before I remembered I brought it in , so my stance on standing up for his rights took a dip at five this afternoon

[SOCL]

It's difficult to convince the hillbillies and fools in Tennessee and Kentucky

Now who's being steoretyical . I have relatives in Kentucky. Say that to their face and you'd be shot!

That seems like a logical response. "Shoot anyone who doesn't agree, or how about just over some schoolyard name calling?" And I know they wouldn't hesitate to shoot me. I lived in both Kentucky and Tennessee for six years, and when I lived by myself, off the military base, I had a guy who lived across the street from me who told me every single day I should "go back to my own country" despite the fact I was born in Puerto Rico and thus an American citizen by birth. Despite the fact my father is in the U.S. Army. Despite the fact I myself am on the Individual Ready Reserve roll for the U.S. Army. I have no great love for Kentucky or Tennessee.

 

Spoken like a true socialist

I would get into a discussion about the incentives for working under a socialized (notice I did not say communist, and also note the lack of capitalization on "socialized"), but I've it before on these forums and it generally doesn't come to that. Suffice to say, the Socialist system (note the capitalization) gives plenty of incentive to work harder. When you see it from the perspective of "I get my fair share, no matter what", then it shows a lack of understanding of how socialism works. How do you think it works in most European, but especially the Scandinavian states?

[Eagle]

Socialism? In Europe?? Where???

 

I guess you were rather talking about social democracy, mate.

[Lord_La_forge]

Wow this topic is hot! I like the Tex vs. SOCL dialogues. I just want to add, that I hope that it is the right time, or better formed, "the time has come".

The whole institute needs that refreshment. Sooner or later, there must be an Obama in that chair, that is a step forward. And even if it's true what Tex said, that the other platform works better in the US (or atleast people there think that), it will be a social and cultural benefit in the long term.

Let him/her (rather him!!! ) take the lead, see what he and his people can do, and if you still don't like it, get those veterans and religious dudes back to business.

 

 

A couple of months ago I´ve watched some vids of some of the candidates to get knowledge for what everybody is fighting for. But soon I got very disappointed about the fact that nearly everybody was talking about just the same, no matter if democrate or republican. They just talked about "ending the war on terror, the terror and the terrorists, bring the terrorists to justice" etc. etc. Of course that´s a very important subject. But I also wanted to know what those candidates have in mind to change for the people in the US. I´m pretty sure there are lots of other problems which need a good solution. But maybe they simply haven´t got one. That´s why they allways repeat the same propaganda.

 

"Hey, vote for me! I´m republican! Nothing else matters!"

"Hey, hello, vote for me! I´m a democrat! Nothing else matters!"

"No, no, vote for me! I´m a democrat and I would be the first female president!"

"Nooo, don´t listen to them! I would be the very first black president!"

 

Sorry, but I´ve never heard anything what these guys want to change. I´m sure any of those candidates would do a good job. But they just telling some parols and that seems to be enough for the people. I just don´t see any substance. For example Obama allways talks about a big change if he would be in power. So what would it actually look like? The change of the presidents colour of skin isn´t just enough.

 

Very good point Eagle. Economy is what matters. Terrorists, yeah okay. First black mate, yeah we know. But what would they really change? That is something politicians tend to forget to tell (good example: my stupid little country) Everything you see or hear is propaganda.

 

solution always means something like this:

don't have money for A. We will get money for A!! But we need to take it from B. (boooo. No votes. Failure)

don't have money for A. No problem, vote for us, we are the reps/dems, we know how to get money for A, and stop the terrorist btw (yay! Everybody happy! Though after voting, they still take the money from B)

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

Small is relative; the US has less than 5% unemployment. The amount considered "lazy" (IMO) is larger than you think Eagle.

I just want to point out that the unemployment rate doesn't actually look at the number of people that are without a job. If you're jobless for x number of years, you are no longer taken into account. (I forget what the number is/how they calculate the percentage, and I'm not worried about it right now. I'll look it up later if someone is really interested.)

 

@Eagle and LLF: I understand what you're saying about change. That is actually one of the reasons I like Obama so much. If you look at his campaign contributions you won't find a single lobbyist. Nor will you find a single "special-interest" group. I

put the quotes in because everyone, and every group, has a special-interest. Obama, at least on the surface, wants to revamp the system here. He wants to, well, here. It's detailed and explained better there than I can do here.

[Evaders99]

On the other side, unemployment rate doesn't take into account those people who don't want jobs

It is those actively looking and without a current job. You have to consider how long it takes for these unemployed people to get a new job. Often people switch jobs many times, so they may be unemployed for all of a few weeks.

[SOCL]

Additionally, anyone scraping out an existence on part-time work do not go into the unemployment count. Yes, granted, they have a job, but it also doesn't count an "official" job because it's not considered enough to sustain a lifestyle. Further, there is no count for immigrant or migrant workers, either, despite the fact most immigrant/temporary workers actually pay in for benefits, but are not granted those benefits. Yeah, don't want immigrants, huh? Willing to give up a great deal of the benefits you get at work? I doubt it.

 

I guess you were rather talking about social democracy, mate.

Precisely. I suppose I did oversimplify it some. It's not socialism, but there's a level of socialized benefits and programs, which makes it apparently socialism here in the States.

 

As for this, which I managed to overlook:

Ah, the young liberal brainwashing propoganda. I'll put this to bed with one person: Condoleezza Rice (she's a double minority; female & black). I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over McCain. It's not the sex or race SOCL, it's the platform. And "conservative" works best in my opinion.

I don't think I accused you of being a racist, Tex, and it's quite unfortunate you saw that in what I wrote. I still believe that a great deal of the people who say Obama is "not ready" or this other nonsense have a level of a racism in what they say, at least in my experience throughout the East Coast of the country. I would hardly call it propaganda, though, as I can assure you, it does exist. As for the matter of Condoleezza Rice, I have a great deal of doubt she would ever run for the Presidency, and I also have a great deal of doubt the GOP would nominate her with any serious intentions of candidacy.

[Lord_La_forge]

Did you guys see that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie5X4fWtHiQ#

Hillary and the sniper fire

" I've made a mistake" LOOL

 

She should be the president! You need to lie all day in that chair anyway

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

Then there's this one.