Palin

[freemehul]

like worst pick ever

McCain better not die in office, or Bush junior is going to look like a competent president.

[freemehul]

If McCain dies of a heart attack, then the western world is doomed. :(

[PUTZ]

you don't even live in the US. stfu. obtuse ninny.

[The Truth]

That idiot should have picked ronmey.

[freemehul]

I must admit Romney would have been a better pick than Palin, but wether he is a good pick i'm not so sure, I mean he could be, then again he could not be. I think McCain must have had his reasons, its probably a personal thing he knows about Romney that made McCain not choose Romney and if that is the case, then Romney while a better choice than Palin would still have been a bad choice.

I can understand why McCain chose Palin, mainly because he needs the right wing vote, to ensure he wins the election. While tactically a good choice, it is a poor strategic choice.

What this tells you, is that while McCain is doing good in the polls, he is not certain of winning the election and that's probably because of Biden.

If McCain is smart he'll replace her the minute he's in office. He'll need some good excuse to dump her sure, but it would be the right thing to do. The thing is he'll need to find a competent replacement.

I'm not so sure he can find one, I mean look at the people in politics, there's no good governor or senator that can even remotely be adequate replacement for him in the worst future scenario. The only person who comes close is Biden and even he's wrong half the time.

[PUTZ]

you are a total idiot, fm.

[Carbonated water]

I'd tap that

[freemehul]

What the U.S. needs:
-1 is someone progressive on domestic, labor and immigration issues
-2 is someone fiscally conservative
-3 is someone moderate and binding on social issues
-4 is someone with experience on foreign affairs, someone with a sound strategic mind, someone who is tough, active and present

Bush has the right idea on the immigration, but he lacks political power, basically he's been lame duck since 2001. =insufficient on 1
Bush is not fiscally conservative, I mean even bringing in those companies in the war was a dumb move and then there is Enron and of course the housing market where he was slow on legislation.
= grossly inefficient on 2
Bush is a divider on social issues, lets be honest there's no such thing as a compasionate conservative. The Florida issue proofed that beyond a doubt once and for all. =very inefficient on 3
Bush had almost no experience in foreign affairs, except for Mexico and the Saudis, heck he didn't even know the President of India. He wasn't tough enough on things where he should have been and too tough where he shouldn't have been (Abu Ghraib etc.). As for strategic mind, fail on securing weapons in Iraq, which should have been a priority at the invasion, fail on not bringing in Turkey (you need a bad cop in that situation, which would have been the perfect role for Turkey, hate to say it, but there is a reason why Saddam used gas on the Kurds), fail on 9/11, running at the sight of danger (this tells you he had poor advisors). The safest place to fly to was New York (anyone who fails to recognise this, lacks strategic insight and needs to shut the hell up). inefficient on 4

Now in the middle of the primaries and such the were basicly 3 candidates left to bid for the office, McCain, Obama and Clinton.

Lets start with Clinton first, she wouldn't have been much different from her husband i'm sure. So what does that say.
Now the Clintons are your typical lawyers, they'll do what is necessary to win elections but nothing more than that, which tells you that anything leftover is the personal choice. This equals to a failure on domestic, labor and immigration issues. First of all they're not willing to be progressive on immigration, because in their situation it is equal to political suicide. On labor they'll do the right thing and they have the backing in the senate to do that what is necessary, on domestic issues though they'll fail as they have done so in the past, because she would have made the same poor decisions her husband made, take welfare issues as an example, they've done more cutbacks on the wrong areas then even a republican president would have made. =moderately insufficient on 1
Sure Clintons are fiscally sound, Clinton was really good in bringing back debt. Sure with wars its a different matter, but at least they would have done something against those lucrative agreements and unlike the rest they have the political power to do so (they 'd even outshine Obama on this one). =greatly sufficient on 2
Hillary can use her husband charisma, sure right wing would tear him apart, but who needs them anyway, oh right you don't. I don't care where he put the sigar in his intern, he still has it. =sufficient on 3
Hillary would have failed on foreign issues, sure they have experience, but both Hillary and her husband lack insight. Past experiences have shown they'll make the wrong decision on the times it is really needed (take Sebrenica as an example, not willing to send in air support is a mistake and that's the kind of mistake that costs lives). =very insufficient on 4

Ok then take Obama. He already made agreements with unions, which he needs for support, unfortunately he is in total agreement and that is bad. This equals to him doing good on labor issues, but very poor on immigration and on immigration he's the worst choice of all. He'd do good on domestic issues I'm sure, but his economic decisions aren't that much better than that of McCain (and Obama is lying if he says the contrary), basicly McCain is too far on the right and Obama too far on the left, they'd both fail in that respect. =moderately insufficient on 1
Obama is not as fiscally conservative as the Clintons. He'll want it all, which means he either has to raise taxes or go further in debt, neither of which is good. Now if he's unwilling to do either he's going to start spreading and that's a bad thing, it means funding is inadequate on all areas (you can only spend a dollar once), including the areas which you really need to be good at (that's military, economic and foreign, no Obama will want labor and social too, which is a bad decision). Obama's problem here is that he's too indecisive and no matter what you might think of it, that is bad. =insufficient on 2
Obama will be the best candidate out of any on social issues, McCain can say all he wants about redemption, but prevention works a lot better. Obama aso has the charisma Kennedy had and that is a useful tool here. His speeches though esoteric in nature, do pack a punch that is useful in uniting behind a cause. =very sufficient on 3
Even though Obama spend some time abroad, he has no experience in foreign affairs whatsoever. However it is not his inexperience that's the real trouble with Obama, he really lacks insight, he is worse than nave and gullable, he's an idiot in that respect. He talks where he should not talk, he's indecisive where he should be decisive, he's soft on the whole, not willing to do anything. Obama's poker mate said this of him: "he does not take risks and his handshake is weak". That tells you two important things about his character, it tells you he's dangerously inadequate to be a commander in chief. His character flaw (and it is a flaw) will cost lives and he'd be worse at it than even Hillary can be at her worst possible moment. Foreign affairs is all about taking risks, you can't play it safe there, because there is nowhere to run to, 9/11 proofed that beyond a doubt. Besides if you did ever get to negotiations he'd fail and give up more than he can, why would you ask, because his handshake is weak. He lacks confidence and people like Putin and Ahmejinedad will make good use of that. McCain is right in saying Obama is not ready, he is not ready and he'll never be ready. His response on both Iraq and Georgia is a telltale sign for anyone with even some strategic insight and geopolitical wisdom that Obama's response is the wrong one. McCain on the other hand has the right attitude. =incredibly inefficient on 4

McCain's decision on immigration is the right one. On domestic issues he's more moderate than Bush will ever be, which is a good thing. Palin on the other hand is not. So how good McCain will do there depends on his support in the senate and behold he does not need his republican support. He'll never get the support on immigration, because oh irony here the democrats will never give it, but he can use that as leverage on the other points. With the right backing he can be moderate and again that's a good thing. He'd fail on the labor account, because he's not progressive enough there. =moderately insufficient on 1
McCain while not as good as the Clinton's, is decisive enough to know where to cut and where to spend. He won't lower taxes like Bush, so while he's not as good the Clintons, he will not be as bad as Bush or Obama. While his wife is rich, he does have the wisdom on spending, heck even his wife has it, her wellfare work gave her that experience. =moderately sufficient on 2
Depending on wether he can check Palin, he's moderate enough to not go conservative, this is why a lot of right wingers don't like him and that's good thing. Sure he won't do much, but at least that also means he won't do anything bad like for instance Bush has done. Sure he's not a great uniter, but is enough not to be a divider here. =moderately sufficient on 3
McCain has experience on foreign affairs, he has a sound strategic mind, he is the one who is tough where it is needed, unlike Bush he is active and present and unlike Bush, McCain will make the right decisions. In fact McCain is the only one of the candidates, no I dare say, probably the only U.S. politician who scores good on all the things there. = very sufficient on 4

[freemehul]

If you go through this checklist you'd see that none of the people are perfect, in fact there's one who generally sux as a president (Bush) and one who will make a poor president (Obama). Sure Obama will be better than Bush (I mean hell only Jackson and Nixon are worse), but he'd still sux. Why? Because he sn't moderate, Bush wasn't moderate and look what it got you, that's right an incompetent president. Politically I'm a lot closer in agreement with the democrats than the republicans, but I can't deal with extreme positions. Obama takes that extreme position, McCain takes the centre position and he'll be more effective president than Obama ever will. It isn't so much the dogma or pragmatism i have a problem with, no it is the positives in ideology and what practically works that I'm looking for. McCain has that, Obama does not have that and will never get that, because Obama is incapable of change.

Going back to checklist none score on all acounts, even McCain does not score on item 1, but he does not need to. He scores on the important issues. Why worry about money, it is lives that are really important. Food, Water and security are greater needs than housing! Ask any hobo and he'll agree with you there. McCain gets that not because he is so smart, he gets it because he is of the right character and no matter what people say issues isn't all, character matters too.

I would really like to see a first black president getting elected, if only to spite the racist bigots and other slime of the earth and i'm hoping Obama will be some day, but certainly not now. Not while the U.S. economy is in such a bad state, not while the free and democratic world is in such a dangerous position it is now. Make no mistake, Iran is indeed out to destroy Israel and if need be the world if they are up to it, Putin who has had men murdered cannot be trusted, you should take a firm position against maffiosi and imperialists whenever you can. China still is no democratic nation and they're showing just what they are capable of in Sudan (most of the bombs in Darfur have a made in China plaque on them). Obama is not firm enough, McCain on the other hand is. Obama is a gullable fool when it comes to Iran, McCain on the other hand knows from his experience that there are indeed evile regimes out there bent on destruction. Obama thinks he is the next Kennedy, I'm sorry to say this but with Iran, a Cuba crisis situation will never happen, the only situation you'll get from Iran, is a Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Anyone who disagrees here is a indeed just as gullable a fool as Obama. You can't negotiate with such a regime (and yes read carefully i'm not saying you shouldn't, i'm saying you cannot do that). Anyone even bothering to pose the question that you should negiotiate is a geopolitical fool, because it is a question that you logically cannot ask in the first place. McCain has wisdom enough to understand this, Obama does not have that wisdom and he will never get it, neither does Clinton, nor Palin, nor Rice (and Bush well Bush does what his advisors tell him and I'm sorry to say that I don't think Petagon is as good after 9/11 as before), Biden if needs be does understand it, but he will make a mistake before he realizes it and by then a lot of damage has already been done (basicly he's one of the few that does not know it, but can learn it). I'm not saying each of these persons does not have intellect, they do, but not when it comes to these things. McCain is the only one who has that knowledge and experience and it is this knowledge and experience you need.

So why should a European bother? Two reasons: 1 NATO, 2 trade and the world economy. U.S. still is the biggest trading partner for most European nations. A good U.S. president is not only important for the U.S., it is important for Europe too and vice versa a good Europe is important for the U.S. It is the single most important reason why the U.S. meddled in european affairs from WW1 onwards in the first place, because it is in its interest to do so. The western world is too intertwined for it to be not important. NATO still is the most important treaty and alliance out there. Sure WTO and GATT feeds the masses, but is NATO that ensures the security of the free and democratic world. Despite all it shortcomings (Falkland wars being an example), it still has importance by very existence. Anyone who fails to understand this is two things, 1 not democratic in his or her true nature and 2 either a fool, or a truly evil person.

You can summarize it by quoting it in these sentences:

"The art of war is of vital importance to the State."

But why bother with a state. It is the people that are truly important, but if a state is in a war then its people will suffer and if you must war anyway, its better to have a capable leader.

"It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. "

McCain understands this, Obama does not.

"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

But not fighting the fight that needs to be fought is equal to a surrender and you should not give up in the face of evil regimes. You should hope for the better, but prepare for the worst. What the people who vote for Obama are doing, is hoping for a good future, but they are not preparing for a bad one and that alone is foolish.

"Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? Which of the two commanders has the most ability? With whom lie the advantages? On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? Which army is stronger? On which side are officers and men more highly trained? In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment?

By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat."

I take hope in knowing this, but I am preparing for the worst. Moral law lies with the free and democratic world. McCain has ability. The advantages and strength lie with the free and democratic world, because despite our lack in numbers, we still have the better economy, adequate resources, the better demographics and the better technology. Discipline is lacking with countries like Russia, Georgia has shown so (Russian forces pillaging and looting in Georgia is a sign of lack of discipline). Iran's and China's military has no constancy, as corruption and nepotism is rampant there.

China, Russia and Iran have regimes who are lead by people who have murdered (Ahmejinedad), or whom ordered persons or people to be murdered (Putin has done so twice, first in Ukraine, second time against the KGB officer in the U.K., China's government has supported Sudan by selling it weaponry, ergo the have no quarrels with genocide). Sure no person is truly good on all accounts, people lie (Bush), people cheat(Clinton), people steal (Chirac). However you can never trust murderers! Obama in his soft and naive nature does not realize this, McCain does realize this!

Why worry about your bankaccount, why worry about your home, why worry about the price of gasoline, if you have your life to worry about?

Not worrying about the latter is an austrich tactic. Do not trust Obama in thinking that evil regimes like that pose no threat, because the truth is despite the fact that they'll never win, they do pose a threat. It does not matter what party the candidate is from, what matters is that the candidate is right. McCain is right, Obama is wrong, it is as simple as that. People voting in favor of Obama, either really do not see it, or they don't want to see that Obama is wrong.

[Astares]

Wow lot of deep thinking going on there i'm not even going to touch.

To respond to the topic, I agree that i'd tap that but it was not a wise choice. It's also continuing the trend of how McCain is running his campaign. He is spending most of his time, energy, and money focusing on whatever can be made negative about Obama instead of what is positive about his own self.

I'm not niave enough to think you have a prayer of winning if you don't muddy the waters a little. Washington politics is a game, nothing more. No one has enough power to do anything themselves, instead you have to scratch a back to get your back scratched. It's unfortunate, and unfortunately unchangeable without full public backing. But if you can't tell me why YOU rock, if all YOU can say is how bad HE sucks, then i'm not interested.

[freemehul]

ah but he does say it, if he'd do any more pointing to the obvious then that would get tiring

besides throwing mud is the only thing that works in U.S. presidential elections, at least for the part where the media is involved. It isn't so much that he doesn't want to show his redeeming qualities, it's more that the media won't allow it. For Obama it's the same situation. Media likes negatives because it sells, that's the way it is. The trouble for Obama is though he's playing it on the economy while he knows and the public knows he can't do a thing about it. The only thing you can do about the economy is not to screw it up like Zimbabwean style.

Obama can throw mud all he likes there, but it doesn't make his lies true. McCain on the other hand has it right in saying Obama has poor judgement on foreign affairs, because Obama does indeed have poor judgement.

I would have little problem with Obama if that weren't the case, if his judgement wasn't so poor, but unfortunately it is true. Obama does make mistakes that are dangerous and will cost lives.

[freemehul]

But if you can't tell me why YOU rock, if all YOU can say is how bad HE sucks, then i'm not interested.

you see the thing is, i look for the logic of ones choices and actions. The only thing Obama has to show for is empty rhetoric. He can talk all he like and can act like Kennedy all he like, but it does not make me change his mind about him.

Truth lies in ones actions or inactions, not with what a person says he does in bold speeches.

Never look for the rhetoric in a politician, look for the logic in his doings. Looking for rhetoric is the biggest mistake you can make about any politician. Arguments are what matters, not whoever is bigger and better at making fallacies, because that is what rhetoric is. Sure rhetoric helps you win elections, but it does not make you a good leader, far from it actually, in fact I think it has the opposite effect.

There is something inherently contradictory in being both a good politician and a good leader. Obama is a good politician but a bad leader when it comes to this kind of decisions.

Obama would make a great minister of social affairs or of labor, but not a president.

[Astares]

I'm afraid McCain is going to walk by a tv and see Missing In Action with Chuck Norris and have a flashback. Then have a heart attack while pushing the button. I know that's unfair, and blown completely out of proportion. And I don't really mean it. But if you read the record of what happened when he was shot down you learn a lot. He got shot down. He broke both arms and legs. He then landed in a lake. He was pulled out, bayoneted in his foot and shoulder and hit with a rifle butt. Transported, i'm sure very comfortably, to the camp and then denied medical treatment for 4 days during interrogation. That's war, it happens more than most of us realize. And it happened a long time ago, in a much different world. But you can't convince me he can ever forget that, and it most definately will have an impact on how he responds to certain scenarios. I want my president acting in my best interests, and those of my nation. I have a lot of respect for the man, but I just can't risk it.

And that's why opinions are like elbows, everyone has a couple of them.

[freemehul]

But you can't convince me he can ever forget that

no i'm counting on the fact that he won't forget that

his experiences made sure he is not as naive as Obama, nor as foolish as Bush

Sure there is a toll for him, mostly physical which is a problem and he has a temper problem, but I do think people can learn from it, he's not a manchurian candidate, his wife and those other people around him can help him. Besides McCain is smart enough to know his own shortcomings, I doubt wether Obama knows his own shortcomings.

[Swirvin' Birds]

Obama can throw mud all he likes there, but it doesn't make his lies true. McCain on the other hand has it right in saying Obama has poor judgement on foreign affairs, because Obama does indeed have poor judgement.

I would have little problem with Obama if that weren't the case, if his judgement wasn't so poor, but unfortunately it is true. Obama does make mistakes that are dangerous and will cost lives.

And what were these bad judgement calls? How can you say he has bad judgement when you've got NOTHING to back that up with?

BTW: Did you all see McCain traveling down to Mississippi and doing the job the FEMA director and Bush should be doing? He is still a Senator, not the President. Freaking hilarious... the same many who had the birthday party George Bush went to when Russia invaded Georgia. LMAO.