The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

sabang

One guy near flunked out of Annapolis, but thank goodness he didn't, someone needs to crash four planes.
The other guy was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review.

I think America needs a firm, steady hand on the tiller and you should vote for the old white haired dude that crashed four planes.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.

Bugs

I don't think they make the Pres actually try and fly Airforce one, so the four plane crashes really won't have an impact on who I vote for.

raycarey

so let me get this straight....you chide obama for an alleged lack of experience, but support mccain because he has a lot of experience at failing.

sabang

^ Nothing new there. Have you looked at Dubya's record?

Bugs

Who chides Obama for lack of experience?

Who supports McCain BECAUSE he has experience at failing?

Not me.

I ain't going to decide who I will vote for based upon how good a pilot they are though - that's just plane silly.


My vote is based upon platform:

I don't support Obama because of his platform.

I support McCain because I agree with more of his platform than Obama's.

Don't agree near 100% with either of them.

__________________
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" - Steven Weinberg

sabang

The real Issue is that of success vs. failure or excellence vs mediocrity. Traditionally, we always believed, or at least wanted to believe, that our top Political Leaders were exceptionally capable, talented people. And when there was one that was able to communicate a Vision, many people associated with that individual, on a very personal level. An obvious example is Kennedy, even Blair to an extent.

But I suppose you are right Bugs- we now live in a rather cynical, post modern, mass media age. It is pretty much accepted, deep down, that a political leader in a modern democracy is basically a talking head for an interest group. In our cynicism, we basically know they are all liars anyway, and will say what they want their audience to hear (as told them by their legions of PR people and Lobbyists) for the purpose of gaining sufficient votes, to gain political power.

Like him or not, Obama has at least injected some excitement into politics again, something that many people associate with on a personal level. He has also apparently gotten a segment of the US population interested in the political process again that were traditionally apathetic- and it is obvious from these pages that several Right leaning people resent that (no, not yourself).

Is he just an empty suit, all hat no cattle? To be honest, we would only really know that after he gets elected, If he gets elected. He has indeed modified some of his positions to suit the political prevailing winds. But we do know McCain is McSame.

Just my personal musings. I would like to see people get more involved in the Democratic process again, personally.

El Gibbon

^The absolute best thing to come of this election is the highly volatile/emotional participation of 'normal' folks. It's been awhile since an election has generated this much interest. For whatever reasons.

It is really interesting to see that "others" ( non-Americans who really don't have A Dog In This Fight), become so polarized over the next US president. As the only Merican sitting around the beer table during the primaries it was an experience being told whom to vote for by folks that really don't understand the system. All well-meaning BTW but still not a clue how the system works. One man/woman cannot totally control the country, no matter how much you believe it to be so.

GWB is not the only one responsible for the fuck-up called Iraq, there are several millions of others that either stuck their collective head in the sand or stood along side his stupid decisions. (which by-the-way won't be truly determined to be right or wrong for decades to come.)

The US system pretty much insures that one person cannot destroy the country, no matter how hard they try.

E. G.

__________________
"If you can't stand the answer --
Don't ask the question!"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

sabang

Indeed, and the democratic system of checks and balances exists largely for this reason, as do the individual political party 'machines'. This might be a question of degree- one person cannot foment a revolution, or even a radical change to such a fundamentally stable yet pluralistic system- and I, unlike Chomsky, would argue that is a good thing (damn dangerous things, those Revolutions). But can one person still be a spearhead for some real change, within the limitations above?

Only if he has a very popular mandate at grass roots level, I would think.

Boon Mee

The Communist Party USA says that Barack Obama may not be the perfect Stalinist they’ve been hoping for, but he is a stepping stone to the new socialist utopia: CPUSA Online - Editorial: Eye on the Prize.

And check this out too: at Barack Obama’s official campaign blog site: Barack Obama | The Socialist Party. With a nice picture of Leon Trotsky.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

Boon Mee

25 More Reasons Why Not To Vote For BO:

You're unlikely to vote for Obama if you.....

1. aren't registered to vote in France or Germany.
2. believe Gen. Petraeus is more important than Al Gore.
3. nod every time you read a Thomas Sowell column.
4. have ever caught yourself humming the theme from" The Green Berets."
5. have gotten your pants dirty in the last week.
6. kinda like a good steak once in a while.
7. have accidentally discharged your gun during church services in a bitter fit of antipathy over people who aren't like you.
8. wouldn't mind knowing if your 14 year old daughter was being taken by a non-family member to Toledo for an abortion.
9. prefer the Super Bowl to the World Cup.
10. know Sig Sauer isn't the name of Obama's domestic policy advisor.
11. are certain Obama would've taken the tank ride if Dukakis hadn't beaten him to it.
12. can't describe Obama's position on the surge without using the word "incoherent."
13. don't think having a baby is "punishment.".
14. have heard about Obama's vote against the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.
15. tend to giggle whenever Nancy Pelosi talks energy policy.
16. think your taxes are plenty high already, thank you very much.
17. prefer legislation come from Congress, not the Supreme Court
18. believe we'd be in a world of hurt if we'd followed Obama's advice on Iraq last year.
19. resent the suggestion you're a racist for treating Obama like a serious presidential candidate.
20. hear the name "Osama Bin Laden" and words other than "habeas corpus" come to mind.
21. were to meet William Ayers, you'd be more likely to bop him in the nose than join his board.
22. list either Patton, Braveheart or 300 among your favorite movies.
23. realize that Obama's Speech of the Century on race was, in hindsight, a crock.
24. wonder which government agency is in charge of healing the planet.
25. personally know somebody who packs his passport whenever traveling to San Francisco... just in case.

Score (# of descriptions that apply to you):
0— You heard that according to Publisher's Clearinghouse, Al Gore won Florida
1—3 You think that had Ron Paul gotten more time in the debates he'd be the nominee
4—24 McCain's your man
25 If only Fred Thompson would drink more coffee....

The Corner on National Review Online=

Texpat

Absolute lack of knowledge on a topic certainly doesn't deter some people from flapping their lips.

That's why god invented TD Issues.

Norton

I think a lot of this reflects the reality the impact decision's made by a US President have on global conditions. Only natural non Americans would have a vested interest. They may not have a "dog in the fight" but are rightfully worried about getting a nasty bite from the top dog!

__________________
There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.

Woodrow Wilson

sabang

Well lets face it, we became pretty polarised over the current one too.

raycarey

or the dog coming around and shitting on their lawn.

Jet Gorgon

^ ROW leaders (except Putin) are too hogtied by unions, PC issues and immigrants to do anything but whinny. Poor Europe.

Texpat

China, while largely still agrarian and backwater, probably has as many astute, tuned-in and clever politicians and leaders as any other country today. They also have a system that allows them to prosecute action with little regard for their "masses."

They're cognizant that everybody's watching them. I wouldn't think of them as hogtied -- in the European sense.

Jet Gorgon

^ True, I was thinking of Euro (hence my last clause). Asia is different.

sabang

Poor Iraq. A certain inertia on the world stage is not such a bad thing.

Political and military meddling may sometimes become inevitable, but we rarely know the true consequences in hindsight. A nation that enjoys a fine standard of living, such as the western European countries, really has few reasons to go to war with another unless it's own security is under threat (hence the lies about Saddams WMD's). It will take many years for Iraqi's to regain the standard of living they had under Saddam, before the UN sanctions, and it is still uncertain if it will remain together as a nation.

Texpat

More hollow rhetoric from a disgruntled non-participant of the glorious liberation.
Read up a bit on life under Saddam and tell us how great it was.

Sometimes sacrifices are in order for a better future.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Mid

The last time I checked, there was no legal or strategic interpretation of evil. An open-ended war on evil leads to Armageddon.

Al Jazeera English - IMPERIUM - Evil in the US elections