i took it as Obama was running a clean campaign, not resorting to the kinds of attacks that were being aimed at him almost daily. Someone (who supposedly supports Obama) goes on the news and says something criticizing McCain's war record, then everyone starts acting like it was Obama who said it while he was eating a baby and rapin' a white woman. look at a couple of the clips, it was A SINGLE decorated general who said the comment, and then in a different clip someone says something to the effect of "who is saying these things? it's the left! they're just nameless faceless people saying these kinds of things" (thats from memory, i think the blonde cow said it). does anyone else see it like this? Obama isn't doing anything outrageous against McCain (which just makes me like him more, our current president will invade anyone who looks at us funny) so they get someone on the news who says he supports Obama then gives the right some ammunition against him. all these little things about Obama from the right. every day we're reminded that he's black, implying he's a double-secret ninja muslim or something, trying to infer terrorist connotations into hand gestures, etc. i wish they would all just come out and call him an N-word, it's so painfully obvious they want to
HELLLLO gentlemen? This is the United States of America. We need a president with military background. How on earth will someone with none be able to understand our troops? If we do not defend our country over there the terrorists will come over here. An our media is NOT i said NOT right wing whatsoever. The Times magazine is entirley Obama oriented and ABC is very left wing. BTW why are the British so concerned about our politics?
I must agree. A good portion of the world considers even our most extreme left-wing politicians to be fairly conservative, with even what we consider the moderate right-wing off-the-charts. FWIW I don't think either term has much meaning these days, seeing as our liberals tend to want to conserve things while our conservatives tend to be quite liberal with our resources; nor do I like either of the candidates (McCain is an idiot and Obama is a sellout - neither will get my vote come November).
I have to hope you are being sarcastic with the above comment. We haven't had a leaders with military experience for decades yet we've been doing alright. Sure our benifits for wounded troops should have been better, but they are getting there now. If you have someone with military experience they will get distracted by all things military and almost forget about the "other things" like running a country on the brink of a recession. hmmmm. It's not just us that are worried/concerned, but this is a mainly UK forum hence why there are so many of us airing our views, especially when the wrong person in charge of the US could do a good job of screwing up world relations. It has an affect on our forgeign affairs after Blair and Bush era which has lead to the rest of the world thinking we are actually a sub continent of the states (ironic really). @I'm_not_a_monster: I 100% agree with you, it's not Obama saying it, but a supporter of his. And I happen to think the General was right, when you watch it, he isn't attacking his military record, he's attacking his presedential credentials. @Firehead: Hit the nail on the head there, if no one else said it then my next post would have been along the same lines. By our standards, the American left wing is pretty centre right, which is the way we are going over here I think, we've had enough with Labour (centre Left....more left now we've got Brown in office, but that's another debate), now, the republicans, they are pretty much far right (but not into extreme territory), or at least this is how it looks from an outside view (I speak for myself here, but I'm pretty sure I am giving a realistic view for most people who actually care). After 8 years of Bush I think the States, and the rest of the World, really needs a centre-right orientated presidency.
are you being sarcastic? if you are, please, don't read the rest, if you are not being sarcastic and are telling something you feel is true please continue reading, thank you. to fix your country up you need a president that has a honourable military background of high rank, has been a great medic, has been a fireman, has been poor, has been a policeman, studied economy, engineering, law and health in university and got great grades on all of them, and is the most inteligent guy you can find. if you cant find the above individual, please, find a guy that is not a hand puppet and is mentally stable and smart, let the consultants help him with decisions that are beyond his field of expertise. from what i have seen in your media.... i think its majority is biased to one side, the republican side, the amount of obama/osama/hussein bashing/confusing i see is amazing and childish. everyone around the world is looking at you, North Americans, on the next elections the vote will mean that you put more of the same in power, or put something better and fresh in power, considering the financial and military power of the USA i can only say that that vote is also our vote because the USA can influence and bend almost every country over the table, rape it with a broom stick and steal it lunch money. PS: if Gore won 8 years ago we would not be in this bloody sticky mess.
the media blows everything out of proportion... how is this any different? its just being noticed cause its not about bush this time....
Plebiscit. Wich, btw, he lost thank god. A major "por que no te calas?" (as said by the king of spain to him in a conference) from the venezuelan ppl. EDIT: Anton Chigur for USA president! At least this is a man on his word!
I know the point was irrelevant to the thread, but not as much as your first response which continues to provoke more off topic idiocrity, that was what I was saying. Further more I didn't say Bush was elected out of stupidity, actually my first post implied the opposite, so feel free to . As far as 119,000 votes being small I still disagree as any pre-schooler with a calculator can tell you. there where about 5.5 million votes between the two of them, 119000 votes came to a difference of 3.5% which easily could have changed the outcome of the election, so it seems 100K is quite alot of votes if you "look at the numbers" And the Gore/Clinton and Obama/Rev comparison is actually quite relevant, as Obama cannot take the rev's support for his actions, Gore could not take Clintons support for his own. I'm only saying that Clintons actions (probably) didn't moraly effect Gore, while the reverands might have morally effected Obama.
There are what, 250,000,000 - 300,000,000 Americans, how many voted and how many couldn't give a flying fack so didn't vote and effectively have let their country become what it is now. It is those who didn't vote because they don't give a flying fack that are to blame, they don't understand how valuable their vote is so they don't bother using it to do some good.
I was not being sarcastic. The president is Commander-in-Chief of the ENTIRE military. He ought to have some experience do u not think?
does bush? i think it would seriously weaken your argument if you were pro-bush. and getting shot down and ejecting does not equal a good president. someone can be a war hero and still a bad president, you don't learn foreign policy and economics at the Hanoi hilton. and to be honest, no. i would rather have a president that can listen to several generals (with a combined experience measured in lifetimes) than one guy who used his daddies connections to keep the VC out of dallas (when he showed up and then when he was sober) playing by his gut instinct. we don't need a general Eisenhower for president anymore, americans have molded the role of president to something like a businessman. leave the warring to the warriors, and the leading to a leader. FYI, i'm not saying Obama is the messiah or anything, i just think he'd be the solution to a couple problems we have now. FWIW i think McCain had serious balls for this:
I'll agree that historically voter turnout is low, but let's at least get the numbers right. According to the US Census Bureau the US population is sitting at an estimated 304 million, give or take. But that's the total population. In 2006, an estimated 225 million were 18 years or older (the legal voting age in the US). Besides age, there are two other important qualifications to vote: Citizenship and legal status. If you remove non citizens and convicted felons (neither of which can vote), the voter turnout numbers go up. According to this report, 63.8% of all US citizens 18 years or older participated in the 2004 elections. That number does not exclude convicted felons or any other people who are disqualified from voting, so the actual turnout may be slightly higher. If you only consider the number of US citizens actually registered to vote (142.1 million), then 88.5% of voters participated in the 2004 election. According to this report from The Electoral Commission, only 61.4% of registered voters participated in the 2005 UK Parliamentary general election. Perhaps we're not so different after all. -monkey
Bush has military experience... very little, but still.. he's crap. If you're going to have a president with military experience.. make sure it's an intelligent president with plenty of military experience, like Eisenhower, he was alright.
You need 1000x more skills to be a president than just military experience, yes McCain went through a lot, and he had balls, but I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of people around the world who have been through the same thing. For me, common sense is the main thing I would want in a leader.
In a word, bejasus. I post a response and return to this site a week later, only to discover that reading comprehension isn't all I'd hoped it might be. With all due respect, your response is both obvious and irrelevant. We all know that bit-tech's locus is the UK. We know it by the mission statement, the argot, the monetary refs, the intimate familiarity with British politics and the detached references to the current US regime, which are characteristic of people who don't have to wince with embarrassment at Bush's inability to pronounce the work escalate. Your comment is a complete red herring that has nothing to do with my post. Here's a recap: (1) I defend the fact that leftist and anti-republican Americans post often on this largely British site, and that, as Americans, they have as much right to criticize "your" country as you (and, by the way, argument by authority doesn't work: everyone from every country has the right to criticize "your" country). (2) Your response is to suggest I was unaware of the locus of the site. Clever tactics, indeed. Were you adding to my post or Monster's? If you were adding to mine, then thanks. But if you were adding to his, then the supreme irony would be this: You'd be saying exactly what I said to him. I pointed out that this site is frequented by many Americans who despise the effects of our selfish-yet-delusional right-wing government, he responded with the red herring, "Didn't you know this was a British site?" and you'd be adding, "Yeah! And this site is frequented by many Americans who despise the effects of our selfish-yet-delusional right-wing government! So there!"
i never said anything about AbyA, i was actually asking what people who are detached from the left- and right-wing propaganda think of our plight. I don't want to sound like a dick, but yeah, I did want to point out to you that this is a UK-based site. you have 13 posts, it's entirely possible you haven't been around enough to notice the difference (i nouticed because everuyone addued u's to eveurything). i ask an open question to europeans on a european site and you feel the need to point out that americans are on here too. of course there are americans, i am one! i consider this issue over and done with, since literally everyone else knew what i meant when i asked europeans what they thought of something, but if you need something else to complain about, i could go on assuming that people from other countries are on a website based in a (you guessed it) foreign country, if it would please you. have a great day =]
What you said was this: "heyyy, you're talking about my country, folks." Assuming someone else is ignorant of the facts because they disagree with you and then making a condescending comment ("apparently, you didn't know this was a British site!") based on the assumption they lack a rudimentary knowledge of spelling and diction is, of course, the vertigo-inducing height of dickitude. Ah, but you didn't exclude other Americans when you said, "you're talking about my country." After all, you were responding to a thread to which at least two other Americans had contributed. (1) If you were truly "done with" "this issue," then you wouldn't feel compelled to have the last word. (2) First you assume you're talking to Europeans on a thread peppered with Americans, then unfounded speculation leads you to conclude I hadn't noticed this was a British-based site, and now you presume to speak for absolutely every member who posted on or casually read this thread by saying everyone understood what you "meant." Allow me to return the favor and offer you condescending advice as well: If you're thinking of becoming a detective, consider other career choices carefully.