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
Why do you support Obama?
Why choose the wife of a liar?
eh?
maybe I am dense
Your words
anybodie's f***g business
Sorry,My error.
BTW, for a record, during Clinton's America was a prosperous country and did not have any debt.
Glad you aknowledged your mistake.
J-Mac '08.
McCain rules.
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.
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.
Show us these polls. And they better not come from Fox News or Anne Coulter's blog, if you know what I mean.
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?
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.
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.
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
McCain thinks setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq sends (Hillary/Obama) is a bad idea. I agree.
What, being able to run a marathon is in the job description?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
That's OK. That means the US buys a lot from China.
That's also OK.
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 ^^
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!
Incidentally, my previous post included a few minor errors for which I apologise and which I have since corrected.tair
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...
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB120412412525296845.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_newsDo 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?
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.
Topic: A Question to Obama Supporters 