A Question to Obama Supporters

[i heart xenakis]

Why do you support Obama?

[thalbergmad]

All you honkeys are in trouble if he gets in .

But surely he is a better choice than another Clinton and a rabid tambo banger.

I must admit, if i was American i would vote for him. I don't give a crap about politics really, I vote for the person and i just like the guy.

Do you fancy him too Mr Pinkleatherpants?

Thal

[i heart xenakis]

All you honkeys are in trouble if he gets in .

But surely he is a better choice than another Clinton and a rabid tambo banger.

I must admit I like extra cheese, if i was American i would vote for him. I don't give a crap about politics really, I vote for the person and i just like the guy.

Do you fancy him too Mr Pinkleatherpants?

Thal

I've never owned pink leather pants, mister beersoakedleiderhosen.  And no I do not.  I liked Kucinich originally, and then Edwards, and now I don't like either particularly but I will take the lesser of three evils (those being McCain, Obama and Clinton) in Hillary.  I just wanted to know why anyone would support him; I don't really understand it.

[thalbergmad]

There is something fresh and clean about him. I guess people think that they would be erasing the slate of the past and starting anew with a guy like this.

Is he not the epitomy of the American Dream?

Black boy makes President?

He has been getting some good press here in the UK. Why choose the wife of a liar?

Thal

[m]

Why do you support Obama?

I don't support him--he is way too slick and too much self-assured. I never trusted such people. He reminds me Gorbachev--beautifully talks and that's where everything stops.
Besides, some of his remarks to me sound like quite low tricks and I don't find too much of a dignity in that.

On the other hand--either candidate wins it won't be worse than now (hopefully).

[m]

Why choose the wife of a liar?

 

Care to elaborate what is the connection?

[thalbergmad]

eh?

[m]

eh?

Sorry, maybe I am dense, but it is not clear enough...

[thalbergmad]

maybe I am dense

Your words

[m]

Your words

But it still does not clear things up and I am still completely unaware how Mr. Clinton's lie (about his personal life BTW, which in my humblest opinion, is none of anybodie's f***g business other than him, his family, and Ms. Levinsky) connected with the fact that Hilary Clinton (who somehow happened to be his wife) running for president.

Or is it something which supposed to sound cool  ?

BTW, for a record, during Clinton's America was a prosperous country and did not have any debt.

[thalbergmad]

anybodie's f***g business

Sorry, did not realise that Mrs Clinton was ignorant of what her husband was doing with his cigar collection.

My error.

Thal

[m]

Sorry,

My error.

Glad you aknowledged your mistake.

[counterpoint]

This is how yellow press hypocrisy ruins politics.

My (presumably unrealistic) wish is, that someone will become president, who is really against war and for social fairness.

[prometheus]

Obama is more white than black. Get over the ethnic thing. If you have one single drop of 'blood' from a negroid ethnicity that doesn't mean you are 'black'.

That way it seems that 'black blood' somehow corrupts your lineage or something.

[rachfan]

Isn't Obama's real appeal that many see him as a rock star, thus have formed a cult that worships his personality?  I mean his actual experience is pretty slim when you think about it. 

[i heart xenakis]

I Just hate how people automatically assume that Obama is the "progressive" of the party (I won't say it's because he's black because that would be "racist", but I suppose maybe it's his height?), when he was in fact probably the most centralist candidate on the original democratic platform.  Same with Ron Paul; Ron Paul is a *** LIBERTARIAN!  He is NOT a left-wing republican.  These people just say they are going to create change, but they never say how, and there's a reason for that.

Also, another one of the key points that would make someone vote for Obama is that supposedly he wouldn't come into the white house with a lot of "baggage".  That is ludicrous; anyone who can raise more money than the Clintons with NO name recognition, and when his key demographic is poverty line, is going to owe favors to Satan himself.  It just sort of sickens me that someone with so little experience and so little honor is probably going to be our next president.

[rhapsody4]

From the perspective of a non-American, it seems bizarre the amount of Presidential dynasty that seems to have occured recently. Nevertheless, there is something about both the democratic candidates that I don't like - It reminds me of Tony Blair, and latterly Gordon Brown and David Cameron in the UK - the fact that what they say and what they mean are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum. At least Omaba has not had to resort to almost slandering Clinton yet (unless I am mistaken - please correct me otherwise).

Also, I feel (slightly) more confident that Obama would be less of a threat to world peace, which ultimately is what the rest of the world is worried about in the present climate. A change from the current Republican regieme would bring a different perspective to American foreign policy - (I'm glad no-one's mentioned John "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain as a serious candidate in this thread yet).

[lisztisforkids]

BTW, for a record, during Clinton's America was a prosperous country and did not have any debt.

 Dont attribute that to Clinton. The cold war had just ended bringning massive surpluses to the domestic sector, and not to mention the internet boom was just beginning.

[thalbergmad]

Glad you aknowledged your mistake.

A quality that is missing amongst some of us.

Thal

[jakev2.0]

J-Mac '08.

[mephisto]

J-Mac '08.

He wants us to feel sorry for him? I wish he hadn't been tortoured, and the fact that McCain is against tortoure is probably the only thing I like abou the guy.

But in a war wich killed 5 million people, McCain isn't exactly the person I feel the most sorry for.

Btw, your post and mine have nothing to do with Obama.

[Kassaa]

J-Mac '08.

Lol wut a noob!! I would have definitely gone to Woodstock instead of getting tortured somewhere in Vietnam for a pointless and wrong war.

[i heart xenakis]

J-Mac '08.

I'd rather spend 5 million on a Woodstock museum than a trillion on Iraq.

[michel dvorsky]

McCain rules.

[i heart xenakis]

McCain rules.

Why?

[michel dvorsky]

He's an old-school Reagan-style fiscal conservative who believes in small government, low government spending, low government interference, and low taxes. He is also always willing to defy party dogma by working with the Democrats (much to the infuriation of the far right).

McCain wants to win the Iraq war - even more than he wants to win the upcoming election.  And he and General Petraeus know how to do it.  According to recent polls, more and more Americans (a majority) recognize that the surge (which McCain advocated most vocally at a time when Dem. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the war "lost") is producing positive results for Iraq.  McCain's knowledge, experience, and principle inform his judgment on foreign policy to a greater extent than merely doing what's politically expedient. I admire that.

It's said to the point of cliche by media, but John McCain is truly a maverick.  Someone so different has probably not been seen in the Republican party since the days of TDR.

[prometheus]

Yeah, but he is *** 72.

Find someone in the 45-55 age range. Over 65 is way  way too old. And he is even older.

[michel dvorsky]

What, being able to run a marathon is in the job description?   

[i heart xenakis]

He's an old-school Reagan-style fiscal conservative who believes in small government, low government spending, low government interference, and low taxes. He is also always willing to defy party dogma by working with the Democrats (much to the infuriation of the far right).

Low government spending is quite the opposite of dumping another 5 years and another trillion dollars into the Iraq war that America doesn't have, which is just what he wants to do.  Trying to cut down domestic spending is also going to mean dick when the Canadian Dollar is worth three US dollars, which is going to happen in about 3 years if trends continue (meaning, if another Republican is elected) because while you might save 30 dollars a paycheck, a candybar will cost you $2.50 and a gallon of gas will be $5.00.

McCain wants to win the Iraq war - even more than he wants to win the upcoming election.  And he and General Petraeus know how to do it.  According to recent polls, more and more Americans (a majority) recognize that the surge (which McCain advocated most vocally at a time when Dem. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the war "lost") is producing positive results for Iraq.

Show us these polls.  And they better not come from Fox News or Anne Coulter's blog, if you know what I mean.

McCain's knowledge, experience, and principle inform his judgment on foreign policy to a greater extent than merely doing what's politically expedient. I admire that.

While I can't argue with the fact that McCain probably has a fair bit of knowledge and experience, I don't think principles come into factor, simply because I'm sure everyone would operate on principles, just different ones depending on different people.  Also, how would being "expedient" be bad?  And could you elaborate on how McCain's foreign policy is not expedient and, say, Hillary Clinton's is?

[michel dvorsky]

Low government spending is quite the opposite of dumping another 5 years and another trillion dollars into the Iraq war that America doesn't have, which is just what he wants to do.

The war is hugely expensive, agreed.  In an ideal world, the money would be in the pockets of American's citizens.  Remember that the war was authorized overwhelmingly by both political parties.  Few people would argue that national security decisions are out of a government's jurisdiction! The decision to invade was made by weighing the costs and benefits of invading or not invading.  It's clear that another 9/11 attack is a human, social, and economic cost that the US can afford to incur again. The question going forward is how the United States can make itself and the world best off given its current options.  It's clear that leaving Iraq now would result in the ruination of that state.  This outcome would be especially tragic given the progress of the surge.  The failures of Bush/Rumsfeld are sunk costs and should not enter into the current analysis of what to do on the margin.

Trying to cut down domestic spending is also going to mean dick when the Canadian Dollar is worth three US dollars, which is going to happen in about 3 years if trends continue (meaning, if another Republican is elected) because while you might save 30 dollars a paycheck, a candybar will cost you $2.50 and a gallon of gas will be $5.00.

Not quite right, sir.  As long as the fed continues to keep a tight watch on the money supply, the domestic price level should only rise at the acceptable rate (under 3%). Your purchasing power will be OK.  The weak dollar is good for US exports. For instance, the low American dollar means that foreigners can afford more American goods (while the goods of foreigners become more expensive for Americans). This will be a boon to American industries and help the current account a bit.   

Show us these polls.  And they better not come from Fox News or Anne Coulter's blog, if you know what I mean.

An early February 2008 Gallup Poll found that 43% of Americans think the troop increase is "making the situation there better".[86] A CNN poll conducted during the same period found that 52% think that US forces are "making progress in improving conditions in Iraq and bringing an end to the violence in that country" while 45% disagree.[95]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007

While I can't argue with the fact that McCain probably has a fair bit of knowledge and experience, I don't think principles come into factor, simply because I'm sure everyone would operate on principles, just different ones depending on different people.  Also, how would being "expedient" be bad?  And could you elaborate on how McCain's foreign policy is not expedient and, say, Hillary Clinton's is?

McCain thinks setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq sends (Hillary/Obama) is a bad idea. I agree. 

[i heart xenakis]

The war is hugely expensive, agreed.  In an ideal world, the money would be in the pockets of American's citizens.  Remember that the war was authorized overwhelmingly by both political parties.  Few people would argue that national security decisions are out of a government's jurisdiction! The decision to invade was made by weighing the costs and benefits of invading or not invading.  It's clear that another 9/11 attack is a human, social, and economic cost that the US can afford to incur again. The question going forward is how the United States can make itself and the world best off given its current options.  It's clear that leaving Iraq now would result in the ruination of that state.  This outcome would be especially tragic given the progress of the surge.  The failures of Bush/Rumsfeld are sunk costs and should not enter into the current analysis of what to do on the margin.

While it is true that at the time the war, well, if you can really call it a "war", was proposed, it was accepted by a fair number of people from both parties, but as you will later go on to say that "the failures of [senators] are sunk costs and should not enter into the current analysis," and I feel that is also true with continuing aggressive efforts in Iraq, beucase the primary reason for invasion in the first place was as a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein and his purported WOMD's, which we *now* know did not exist.  Obviously it's pointless to try to put blame on who gave that wrong information, because someone like you or I could never in a million years figure it out (and hopefully I don't sound too Oliver Stone-esque with this) through the beaurocracy, covertness and outright bullshittery of Cheney/Rumsfeld.  The fact that we've verified there never were any should tell us that we need to get out, because despite what the Bush machine might want us to believe, the Americans being there isn't really doing much any more; one could possibly say we DID something good and have set the wheels in motion, but they're already going and we don't need to be there any more.

Not quite right, sir.  As long as the fed continues to keep a tight watch on the money supply, the domestic price level should only rise at the acceptable rate (under 3%). Your purchasing power will be OK.

That's what they've been saying since 2002.  I'm only 19 and even I remember when gas was $1.25.  While *theoretically* my purchasing power should be OK, we both know that really isn't going to be the case if things keep going in the direction that they are.  That 3% figure is just a pacifier, and anyone who has a receipt from 2001 ought to know better than to fall for that boilerplate nonsense.

The weak dollar is good for US exports. For instance, the low American dollar means that foreigners can afford more American goods (while the goods of foreigners become more expensive for Americans). This will be a boon to American industries and help the current account a bit.

While I respect you a lot more than most people on this forum for the way you've presented yourself in this thread, I have to say I am a little surprised someone with your seeming intelligence would say something like that.  As I called the 3% figure a pacifier, this statement is beyond that; it's really, in lack of better terms, manipulation o.o  That would be similar to saying "Well, the entire country of the United States has been nuked today, but on the bright side, their waste problem has been solved."  Obviously that's a fairly dramatic analogy, but I'm sure you get my point.  That statement is the definition of diminishing returns, and frankly I don't feel that we should have to be in a budget crisis to be able to have a lucrative export industry.  There ARE ways of fixing our import/export deficit, and simply losing the value of our currency is not a viable or long-term way to do that!   

An early February 2008 Gallup Poll found that 43% of Americans think the troop increase is "making the situation there better".[86] A CNN poll conducted during the same period found that 52% think that US forces are "making progress in improving conditions in Iraq and bringing an end to the violence in that country" while 45% disagree.[95]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007

Well 43% is certainly less than half of the people, and you should also look at what percentage of people who vote there are republican; that's a fairly biased view.  CNN is also a less-overt Fox News, as we all know, so I would personally discount a margin of 2% on one of their polls, but then again, where exactly COULD someone find a completely non-biased answer to a question like that?  I think it's probably pretty futile for us to trade links back and forth of polls supporting/admonishing the current state of Iraq, and I'm sure we both know there are a million of each

McCain thinks setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq sends (Hillary/Obama) is a bad idea. I agree. 

I also don't think a time-table is the correct strategy, actually   I feel that, with the exception of General Patraeus himself, and a few experts and field reports, nobody is really capable of knowing FOR SURE what exactly is happening over there, but I do think that the little progress we're making at this very moment is a good indication that we've exhausted the effectiveness of us being there.  But as I was saying about people like you and me not really being able to know, I think they need to pay for one of those Harvard Studies like they seem to like to do occasionally and get them to figure it out, or at least be able to present a clear, unbiased and accurate description of what exactly is happening so our government can get a better idea of how REALLY to solve the problem, because I would bet that 24/25 US senators couldn't name half the states/provinces in Iraq, and I feel they need to be more thoroughly educated on the subject, and then let them come up with a decision based on those facts instead of party alliances.

[prometheus]

What, being able to run a marathon is in the job description?   

That's a pretty good job description if you ask me.

[mephisto]

michel dvorsky is Jake2v.

[cygnusdei]

But ... but ... it's impossible! According to forum rules "members are permitted a maximum of one account per person" 

[michel dvorsky]

Indeed, cygnusdei is correct. The rules are: one member, one account. That's the way it goes. Thusly, I am NOT 'Jake2v' and this kind of wild speculation should cease immediately.

[ahinton]

While it is true that at the time the war, well, if you can really call it a "war", was proposed, it was accepted by a fair number of people from both parties, but as you will later go on to say that "the failures of [senators] are sunk costs and should not enter into the current analysis," and I feel that is also true with continuing aggressive efforts in Iraq, beucase the primary reason for invasion in the first place was as a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein and his purported WOMD's, which we *now* know did not exist.  Obviously it's pointless to try to put blame on who gave that wrong information, because someone like you or I could never in a million years figure it out (and hopefully I don't sound too Oliver Stone-esque with this) through the beaurocracy, covertness and outright bullshittery of Cheney/Rumsfeld.  The fact that we've verified there never were any should tell us that we need to get out, because despite what the Bush machine might want us to believe, the Americans being there isn't really doing much any more; one could possibly say we DID something good and have set the wheels in motion, but they're already going and we don't need to be there any more.

You're absolutely right here, except in the sense that the continued American (though not only American but foreign) military presence is "doing much" - damage to the reputation of America and precious little good to the Iraqis - and people the world over are increasingly coming to notice this fact.

I'm only 19 and even I remember when gas was $1.25.  While *theoretically* my purchasing power should be OK, we both know that really isn't going to be the case if things keep going in the direction that they are.  That 3% figure is just a pacifier, and anyone who has a receipt from 2001 ought to know better than to fall for that boilerplate nonsense.

Spot on again. Oil is not in short supply the world over, despite its gross global over-use, but it has, in many of its major production areas, become a political substance, our absurd dependency upon which is increasingly becoming a victim of the political instabilities and uncertainties that go with the oil territory. We have the technology to bypass it, but efforts to achieve that are on a very small scale so far.

While I respect you a lot more than most people on this forum for the way you've presented yourself in this thread, I have to say I am a little surprised someone with your seeming intelligence would say something like that.  As I called the 3% figure a pacifier, this statement is beyond that; it's really, in lack of better terms, manipulation o.o  That would be similar to saying "Well, the entire country of the United States has been nuked today, but on the bright side, their waste problem has been solved."  Obviously that's a fairly dramatic analogy, but I'm sure you get my point.  That statement is the definition of diminishing returns, and frankly I don't feel that we should have to be in a budget crisis to be able to have a lucrative export industry.  There ARE ways of fixing our import/export deficit, and simply losing the value of our currency is not a viable or long-term way to do that!   

Broadly speaking, I agree, but I think that the reality may be a slightly different way around. The gradual collapse of the US currency may well be "good for exports" in the short term - that's the case for any country when its currency value depletes against that of other countries' currencies - but if it continues to fall sufficiently, the manufacturing market place in US will suffer and there simply won't in the end, be the goods to export. Beranke is continuing to make noises about the possibility of yet further interest rate cuts, but unless those turn things around (and, even if they happen and begin to do just that, there's no guarantee that they'll do so for long enough to set matter aright), there may be no end to the plight of both the US$ and the country's manufacturing capabilities, which could affect not only US exports but also its supplies to the home market.

Well 43% is certainly less than half of the people, and you should also look at what percentage of people who vote there are republican; that's a fairly biased view.  CNN is also a less-overt Fox News, as we all know, so I would personally discount a margin of 2% on one of their polls, but then again, where exactly COULD someone find a completely non-biased answer to a question like that?  I think it's probably pretty futile for us to trade links back and forth of polls supporting/admonishing the current state of Iraq, and I'm sure we both know there are a million of each

I also don't think a time-table is the correct strategy, actually   I feel that, with the exception of General Patraeus himself, and a few experts and field reports, nobody is really capable of knowing FOR SURE what exactly is happening over there, but I do think that the little progress we're making at this very moment is a good indication that we've exhausted the effectiveness of us being there.  But as I was saying about people like you and me not really being able to know, I think they need to pay for one of those Harvard Studies like they seem to like to do occasionally and get them to figure it out, or at least be able to present a clear, unbiased and accurate description of what exactly is happening so our government can get a better idea of how REALLY to solve the problem, because I would bet that 24/25 US senators couldn't name half the states/provinces in Iraq, and I feel they need to be more thoroughly educated on the subject, and then let them come up with a decision based on those facts instead of party alliances.

The problem with an administration like the present US one (if you'll pardon such an intrusive statement from a foreigner) is that even if such studies were commissioned, fully funded and conducted, that administration would almost certainly whitewash the results for the sake of their own convenience and nothing constructive would therefore come of them; forgive my pessimism on this if it is unfounded, but those are my thoughts on it for what they may or may not be worth.

Do you not think, however, that the continued US presence in Iraq and much of the "justificatory" PR for it is just an example of the onward march of a US determined to stake some kinds of claim in many places "in case of security risk"? It certainly seems that way from where I'm sitting. I don't want to major unduly on the once much-vaunted "axis of evil" cliché, but it has surely been made to become a convenient kind of proto-imperialist portmanteau euphemism for "we don't like/trust what we reckon is going on where you are, so you give us no alternative but to set up some military bases in your country as a part of our bid to fight the war on terrrr", or some such...

Best,

Alistair

[michel dvorsky]

Low $US exchange rate induces people to buy $US for in the hopes that it will appreciate.  These actions effectively appreciate the $US. Economic growth in places like China is, contrary to popular belief, mainly based on high consumer spending and not from balance of trade surpluses (C as opposed to X-M in the macro GDP equation). This bodes well for the US. 

The US economy is going through a tough time at the moment.  However, the main job of the Fed is controlling inflation (which it seems to be doing right now).  A mini recession now is far preferable to stagflation down the road.

[shortyshort]

Indeed, cygnusdei is correct. The rules are: one member, one account. That's the way it goes. Thusly, I am NOT 'Jake2v' and this kind of wild speculation should cease immediately.

Not true.

I had 3 or 4 accounts for a while.
They all worked.

But I did get banned for it.

[i heart xenakis]

Low $US exchange rate induces people to buy $US for in the hopes that it will appreciate.  These actions effectively appreciate the $US. Economic growth in places like China is, contrary to popular belief, mainly based on high consumer spending and not from balance of trade surpluses (C as opposed to X-M in the macro GDP equation). This bodes well for the US. 

Actually there is about the tune of ¥1.400.000.000.000 hedging the USD.

The problem with an administration like the present US one (if you'll pardon such an intrusive statement from a foreigner) is that even if such studies were commissioned, fully funded and conducted, they'd almost certainly whitewash the results for the sake if their own convenience and nothing constructive would come of them; forgive my pessimism on this if it is unfounded, but those are my thoughts on this for what they may or may not be worth.

Well, I'm an idealist!  And besides, it can't hurt ^^

[michel dvorsky]

That's OK.  That means the US buys a lot from China. 

[i heart xenakis]

That's OK.  That means the US buys a lot from China. 

Yen. Not Yuan.

[michel dvorsky]

That's also OK.

[i heart xenakis]

That's also OK.

Hedged.  Not invested.

I'm very confused as to how you would think it was ok either way.  Please explain?

[ahinton]

Low $US exchange rate induces people to buy $US for in the hopes that it will appreciate. These actions effectively appreciate the $US. Economic growth in places like China is, contrary to popular belief, mainly based on high consumer spending and not from balance of trade surpluses (C as opposed to X-M in the macro GDP equation). This bodes well for the US.

It may not do so and there is also insufficient evidence that enough people, companies and governments actually are buying those dollars; furthermore, there is a far larger and more widespread problem that not only US itself but the nations that might otherwise help to bale its currency out are all grossly indebted to one another to the extent that none would be able successfully to call in its debts if it wished or needed to do so.

Actually there is about the tune of ¥1.400.000.000.000 hedging the USD.

Well, I'm an idealist! And besides, it can't hurt ^^

I am, too, but then governments aren't usually run by idealists, even if their electorates may on occasion happen to include a few such!

Incidentally, my previous post included a few minor errors for which I apologise and which I have since corrected.

Best,

Alistair

[michel dvorsky]

It may not do so and there is also insufficient evidence that enough people, companies and governments actually are buying those dollars; furthermore, there is a far larger and more widespread problem that not only US itself but the nations that might otherwise help to bale its currency out are all grossly indebted to one another to the extent that none would be able successfully to call in its debts if it wished or needed to do so.
I am, too, but then governments aren't usually run by idealists, even if their electorates may on occasion happen to include a few such!

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB120412412525296845.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

Incidentally, my previous post included a few minor errors for which I apologise and which I have since corrected.
tair

Do those "minor errors" include the following vitriolic screed?:

problem with an administration like the present US one (if you'll pardon such an intrusive statement from a foreigner) is that even if such studies were commissioned, fully funded and conducted, that administration would almost certainly whitewash the results for the sake of their own convenience and nothing constructive would therefore come of them; forgive my pessimism on this if it is unfounded, but those are my thoughts on it for what they may or may not be worth.

Do you not think, however, that the continued US presence in Iraq and much of the "justificatory" PR for it is just an example of the onward march of a US determined to stake some kinds of claim in many places "in case of security risk"? It certainly seems that way from where I'm sitting. I don't want to major unduly on the once much-vaunted "axis of evil" cliché, but it has surely been made to become a convenient kind of proto-imperialist portmanteau euphemism for "we don't like/trust what we reckon is going on where you are, so you give us no alternative but to set up some military bases in your country as a part of our bid to fight the war on terrrr", or some such...

Your charges that the administration controls the results of private polling and that the United States is imperialist are pretty far out, man.  Are you trying to parody the far Left?

[indutrial]

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB120412412525296845.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

Do those "minor errors" include the following vitriolic screed?:

Your charges that the administration controls the results of private polling and that the United States is imperialist are pretty far out, man.  Are you trying to parody the far Left?

Wait...The U.S. is not imperialist anymore. Have I been dreaming these past several years?

[michel dvorsky]

Wait...The U.S. is not imperialist anymore. Have I been dreaming these past several years?

The US is a big colonial power!  Guam! American Samoa! ...Wake Island!  Uhh..Puerto Rico? (Ahem...which had a referendum to remain a territory of the United States).

Nobody seriously considers the US an imperialist power.

[i heart xenakis]

You haven't answered my question regarding the ¥1,400,000,000,000.00 hedge on the USD.  You just say "It's ok."

[indutrial]

The US is a big colonial power!  Guam! American Samoa! ...Wake Island!  Uhh..Puerto Rico? (Ahem...which had a referendum to remain a territory of the United States).

I took American History II in high school also! Fortunately I decided to read other books after I graduated.

[michel dvorsky]

I took American History II in high school also! Fortunately I decided to read other books after I graduated.

Yeah, speaking on that subject...Hugo Chavez called - said he wanted his books back.