W

McCain may be giving up on Ohio.

MAY, mind.

No need to panic just yet.

 

There's really a good chance that Obama will get assassinated. Then you could start your own calendar to date events that take place in your life.

Anyway, being a regular non-American, I'm really not interested in who sits in the White House. I've never understood the whole Bush affair and how European teenagers are affected by the American presidency.

As you said, it will be interesting. For you guys.

 

It was the socialistic liberals that pushed to get people who couldn't afford homes into the homes that they still can't afford. So I wouldn't really pin this thing on Bush.

But speaking of George Bush, I went to College Station, Texas today for lunch, and I gotta say, there is an assload of hot babes in that town.

 

Yup, we liberals love it when people get kicked out of their houses.

So, yeah, step one complete;

1. Convince republicans that we DON'T want deregulation so that they'll push for it, and allow banks to feel free to loan money to anyone and everyone then bundle those bad mortgages and sell them off. All of this while sneakily introducing the practice of selling credit default insurance and the subsequent (unregulated!) practice of swapping them to minimize personal risk, then laugh as some crappy company gets stuck holding tons of bad mortgages and fails, triggering the swaps that (yet again because they were unregulated) no one actually has the money to pay for.

2. ....

3. Rule the world!!!!

 

Hahahahha....Clinton, a socialistic liberal?

Oh, man, that's rich.

 

Actually, it was the banks. They've positively no motivation to turn loans down. Why? Because, of Billy Bob defaults on his loan, the government bails him out, meaning that the bank is guaranteed to get paid. They don't give a flying fuck if it's coming from us tax payers or if it's from Billy Bob. They just want profit. Major downside being that, on a small scale, it has little impact on the economy. If it hits the large scale, however, with lots of people defaulting? Well.... look around. It'sn't us liberals, but it's not the conservatives either. It's the banks attempting to make a profit off people who're living beyond thier means. On a completely unrelated note: I'mn't a huge fan of Obama (unlike everyone else my age, for god knows what reason), but I sure as hell don't support McCain... so voting Obama it is. The lesser of two evils, as I see it. :???:

 

Even though the identity of the next American president will have pretty much no effect on us here is Australia, I still kinda want Obama to win. No idea why... unless it's the fact that his running partner isn't BATSHIT FUCKING INSANE.

 

There are shloads of reasons why we are in this crisis, and there are just as many people blaming over-regulation as those blaming deregulation. Being the layman that I am, I haven't bothered spending my time and resources researching something that has minimal impact on myself. But what I do know is that you can't possibly pin all, or even most, of the blame on one or two people that have held the office of president of the United States. While the president does have more power than any other single person in the government, he ultimately has less power than the rest of government.

As for this election, there is unfortunately no really good (conservative) choice, but I will choose a centrist candidate over a socialist all day long.

Edit: Xiao, it surprises me not at all that you would think so, as the media has been tirelessly attempting to paint her in whatever negative way they can, but I've seen nothing from Sarah Palin that would make me think that she is anything but a solidly conservative, down-to-earth person.

And I'd love to hear from anyone who thinks that the news media doesn't have a significant lean towards the left.

 

I'm pro-abortion, and against the Iraq war, and from what I've heard, McCain has been speaking of never leaving Iraq, where as Obama is at least talking of downsizing troops. Those're my two big issues. Also, McCain's fucking ancient, and I REALLY don't want to see Palin in office.

 

For the first time in my adult life, I'm going to waste my vote.
I'm convinced that neither McCain or Obama is the right one for the job, so I plan on voting for whoever happens to be directly below those two.

I don't care if it's Howard the Duck with the All-Night Party.

[ /two cents worth ]

 

Constitutionally, that's certainly true; but in reality there are two reasons that this statement is kinda bunk.

First, the executive order, effectively a constitutional loophole that lets the president do just about whatever he damn well pleases (including declaring war, though so far congress has always backed up these sorts of orders, so the legality of this kind of use is still up n the air) so long as he can link the order to an existing law (and this link can be quite tenuous...it was an executive order that led to Japanese Americans being sent to camps in WWII by Roosevelt).

Secondly our two party system means that a president wields a significant amount of power through the simple fact that he is the leader of one of the two major parties (and typically the more popular of the two, though not always the most populist in the legislative branch). As a result, while the president clearly has no vote in congress he does have the ability to introduce legislation and typically holds great sway with his party.

All that said, I do agree that W. specifically doesn't really have anything to do with the credit meltdown.

Oi, this old chestnut.

I've got bad news for ya pally, unless you hate public spending for the roads, police departments, fire engines, and even the military, you too are a socialist.

If you don't like Obama's tax policy, say so; don't simply use a loaded word like socialism as a straw man.

I sure don't. The media does have a bias though, and it's toward making money. Journalism today isn't what it used to be, there can be little doubt, but it's mostly a triumph of sensationalist, "Look, [Flavor of the month here] is getting out of his plane and into his car!" crap.

 

Public spending for those things that are absolutely necessary for law and order to be maintained can hardly be called socialist. On the other hand, public spending and tax laws that attempt to level the playing field through redistribution of wealth, and through providing goods and services to those who can't or won't pay for them at the expense of those who can and will can easily be called socialist. It would be a stretch to call Barrack Obama anything but a socialist.

 

So, your problem is not in fact redistribution of wealth, but rather where (or who) those funds go.

I would ask that you do your best to strip the word socialist of the obviously rather heavy implications you've attached to it. Of course, seeing the right-leaning anti-socialist slant of the media, I can understand your (and most people's) tendency to infer more from the word socialist than is really fair.

I mean, just take one of the examples I used previously...building roads can hardly be called absolutely necessary for law and order. They're a good idea made possible only by the ability of millions of people to co-operate together to produce better results than those individuals working seperately could hope to achieve. Socialism is, in fact, what government is all about.

None of this is to say that you're wrong that Obama's tax policy would be bad for the country....I disagree, but I certainly understand the position. What it does mean is that I personally think that using socialism as some sort of boogey man is deceptive and manipulative.

As to the tendency of the media to be Politically Correct, I agree...but that hardly means that they are left-leaning. I am a dirty socialist and I am no fan of political correctness. Being obsessed with an over-the-top control of language is not inexorably tied to the idea of liberalism. The media is interesting in being PC first because they are trying to offend the least amount of people possible, and secondly because whipping up controversy about the things people say is great fodder. The more they can convince people that someone is being offensive, the more people interested people get in the story. Hopefully this is a trend that is on the way out, but ultimately I think people make more of the whole mess than it's really worth. That may just be me though.

 

I dislike socialism, not because of any Cold War era implications it carries, but because of what it is and what it means for me and my country. Calling Obama's policies socialistic is not a scare tactic, it is calling a spade a spade.

And roads are necessary for commerce and for national defense, both of which are heavily interrelated and completely necessary for maintaining order and sustaining society, while still preserving freedom. Freedom and capitalism are the hallmarks of a democratic republic, while state-enforced equality and collectivism are the hallmarks of a socialistic republic. Personally, I prefer the first option.

 

My entire point is that what you decide is "completely necessary for maintaining order and sustaining society" is very much a subjective opinion, and not the black and white binary choice you seem to want to make it. For you, roads are a completely reasonable thing for us to spend tax money on. For others, like myself, spending tax money on social programs that help the needy is appropriate. There are even some people who think roads shouldn't be paid for with public funds, or that a person who can't pay for a fire truck should have his house burn down if it catches on fire.

Each time the government takes money from individuals and applies that money to public works some freedom is being lost. That's the name of the game, balancing the surrender of freedom that society requires with the benefits of collective works that it allows us to reap.

 

A strong public education (with free higher education) is also pretty much a necessity of a strong economy.

But yes, direct redistribution of wealth is the dumbest idea ever. Is it my duty to give money to unproductive loser faggots so that they can keep on drinking more and more beer, smoking like a chimney, beating their kids or interfering with their education in any way? Hell no!

Vouchers for food, clothing, books, housing, sports equipment, et cetera, are much more effective.

Guardians are also useful, while the parents are being beaten up for child abuse.