Obama's gonna win!!!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:18 pm

I see today in the British Press that McCain is leveling in the polls now only running an average of 3% behind Obama.

Giving margin for erroe, i think the truth is dawning and McCain has already won.

Obabma will make a terribe President in my opinion. I don't believe he will have the respect fromthe British Government nor the British people.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:20 pm

oscar;1041137 wrote: Obabma will make a terribe President in my opinion. I don't believe he will have the respect fromthe British Government nor the British people.Neither did Mahatma Gandhi but he was effective. I'm all for someone prepared to do the right thing for a change.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:48 pm

spot;1041140 wrote: Neither did Mahatma Gandhi but he was effective. I'm all for someone prepared to do the right thing for a change.

Yes, but as with most politicians, it's all talk.

I've heard Obama change track in his speeches so many times over the past 6 months, i'm not sure any more.

He is being hailed because he said 'Hard times are ahead'. So what? That's not a policy. He's only repeating what every leader of the EU has been saying for weeks. He doesn't need to be a messiah to work that one out.

He talks of change. What change?? I don't see him coming up with anything that McCain didn't say 6 months ago.

If the polls are anything to go by, the surprise we had in Britain when John Major got in, could see McCain taking several states instead of just the odd one by a margin.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:00 pm

oscar;1041168 wrote: If the polls are anything to go by, the surprise we had in Britain when John Major got in, could see McCain taking several states instead of just the odd one by a margin.
The election's already over, Senator McCain has been obliterated and Governor Palin has already announced her intention to run as Republican candidate for president in 2012. All that's left at the moment is writing the inauguration speech.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:23 pm

spot;1041180 wrote: The election's already over, Senator McCain has been obliterated and Governor Palin has already announced her intention to run as Republican candidate for president in 2012. All that's left at the moment is writing the inauguration speech.

I shall believe it only when i see it. Then maybe, I'll eat my Daily Mail words. There is likely to be some surprises.

No-body wanted to answer an issue i raised on another thread, that in privacy, there may be some who will simply not vote black, despite saying so in the polls. No-body wants to seem to be a racist.

In the privacy of their own homes, there could still be a shock.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:38 pm

If there's a significant racist element it's as likely, perhaps, to be people who join in speaking in racist terms when in public with others of like mind, but in the privacy of the voting booth doing what they know to be right for the country. That would give a swing in the reverse direction to the one you're discussing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:01 pm

spot;1041180 wrote: The election's already over, Senator McCain has been obliterated and Governor Palin has already announced her intention to run as Republican candidate for president in 2012. All that's left at the moment is writing the inauguration speech.
:wah: That's been in the can since around 1988!

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:12 pm

Hoss;1041210 wrote: You don't think that some blacks are voting for Barack Obama simply because he is black? I think that’s the most likely race event this electionThe only estimate I've seen this month is a 90% preference which is pretty close to the proportion of the Jewish vote for the Democrat candidate historically. Pressure groups vote in blocks. Do you not think fundamentalist Christian pressure groups like the Moral Majority and its successors get over 90% of their membership voting Republican? I do.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:42 pm

Hoss;1041210 wrote: You don't think that some blacks are voting for Barack Obama simply because he is black? I think that’s the most likely race event this election, I would assume the same of some whites for John McCain in light of the fact that Barack Obama is black.

I think that many more blacks will do this than whites, but I have no way of proving it. It just makes sense in my head because blacks will have the ability to do so for the first time in our history.

We had an article in our press weeks ago which i didn't post for fear of being called a racist. It was saying how for the first time, most black people who had never bothered to vote in their lives, were or would be coming out to vote simply because they had a black man to vote for. The same as they said, a lot of women would vote McCain because Obama dumped Hilary. It will be interesting. I am sure Obama is not home and dry by far. That is just prayer on behalf of some.

I don't even care what the polls are saying. We have seen shock swings before so it's still unsure as it was 6 months ago.

What's Obama doing about helping the people of New Orlean's??:-3

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:47 pm

oscar;1041254 wrote: We had an article in our press weeks ago which i didn't post for fear of being called a racist. It was saying how for the first time, most black people who had never bothered to vote in their lives, were or would be coming out to vote simply because they had a black man to vote for. The same as they said, a lot of women would vote McCain because Obama dumped Hilary.
In 1988 Americans of Greek heritage turned out in record numbers to vote overwhelmingly for Dukakis. :yh_glasse

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:22 pm

oscar;1041137 wrote: I see today in the British Press that McCain is leveling in the polls now only running an average of 3% behind Obama.

Giving margin for erroe, i think the truth is dawning and McCain has already won.

Obabma will make a terribe President in my opinion. I don't believe he will have the respect fromthe British Government nor the British people.

You may be right, but I think he (Obama) will win, but not by a landslide by any means, and its not a forgone conclusion.

As to Obama not being respected by the British people, thats rubbish, firstly they will love him, as he is charismatic and says things Europeans like to hear.

Secondly, the Americans could elect a scarecrow to the Whitehouse and the slavish British press would be out saying how it was a "bold move" to elect a scarecrow something that stupid lefty Europeans would never do as they are too busy electing humans. They would go on to explain, in hushed awe-inspired tones that Mr Scarecrow USA was a political mould-breaker from Kansas and would shake up the international scene, not like those damn EU EUROCRATS, FUME BLUSTER FUME, etc etc. Britain is hardly a European country anymore, now its just essentially a North American cultural colony in reverse, does whatever its told by the State Department, and is just another US dominion, except with a funny flag, the Pound, the Queen, Man Utd, and black pudding. How sad.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:06 pm

Firstly, thank you for an indepth post, I shall respond if I may. Yours are in red, mine are in black.

The war on terror is won by continual pressure until the terror states give up, hopefully the common people of the terror states will get tired of sending their sons to die for no good reason and stop it from within.

They could equally say the same thing of your army, and don't forget you invaded their country, so they have a lot of motivation right now. This is why you shouldn't get involved in a country unless you have no choice and its the right country you need to attack in the first place, that you know how to win, and that you know how you are going to get out once its over, thats why Iraq specifically was a bad, bad idea. Cause one out of three is not enough.

No, I think it’s very subtle, and to be perfectly forward and not hide behind potential racism I will tell you now that I'm speaking on what I think will happen, not that I hope will happen, in fact I hope and pray that it will not happen, but I think it will. I think that if Barack Obama tries to give the blacks an advantage over any other poor race, or group during a time when its difficult for any group to make ends meet as in the current recession we find ourselves in, then the tensions caused by favoritism, no matter how its introduced as a corrective measure for past slavery or economic difficulties it will come across as simple favoritism. That will be very bad. In the middle of economic hardships, tensions, stresses and a spark make for a very bad racially explosive situation. If we use the LA riots as an example, it was a free for all, after an excuse of injustice and part of LA was burned and looted. All that needs to happen is that Barack Obama is perceived as doing this and the riots would start.

I don't see why he would give the poor blacks an advantage, perhaps some of them might think that way, but its no more likely than McCain is going to give the poor whites an advantage over everyone else.

I think he's an intelligent well educated gentleman. But I think he will try to make liberal changes that will affect the US Constitution. I do know for certain that he will make more changes in the Constitution than I would! It's my gut feeling that he will try to weaken through judicial process my freedom of speech, and my right to bear arms, and he will expand the role of government, and I think the very heart of the Constitution limits government. I think his actions and liberalism oppose the basic ideology of the Constitution.

I have one thing to say to you, "The Patriot Act", enacted by a supposedly freedom loving Right Wing Republican Adminitration whose watchword was "small government", its probably the most insidious bill to American freedom ever published, and the most serious intrusion of the state into the life of its citizens in any Western nation since WWII. Its not Obama you should worry about, the threat to your liberty comes from elsewhere my friend.

I think the prime reason that we are in recession (not depression) is that the democrats in the previous administrations (Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton) Enacted a sytem of social engineering with the goal of minority home ownership, so they changed the lending rules and put pressure on banks to loan money to less than credit worthy americans, which in trun lead to a glut of greed in the home speculation market, and the eventual collapse. That along with run away spending by both parties and the common greed in humanity led to the current recession. Please note I am not in any way an expert on the economy. I admit I'm very weak on this subject, Im tryign to learn but I'm also in classes for other things and that has most of my attention right now. My personal opinion is that no government should have the right to borrow money to pay for itself.

I think that all US administrations (and the British and others) have been fiddling with the rules of financial markets for decades. But to be honest, this really goes back to Thatcher and Reagan and this era of very liberalized capitalism, where it was believed that totally free markets would always solve all problems, while the conditions that these markets operated under was made far to easy for them, and they were made far too "free" in that they were "free" of the consequences of bad financial decisions. In terms of governments not borrowing, its not realistic, we live in a global capitalist system, governments need credit just like businesses, but it should be realistic credit, not unlimited irresponsible deficits. Borrowing is just deferred taxation.

My father suspects that he is not a US citizen, and is not eligible to run or to serve as President. He has written a letter to the Barack Obama campaign explaining that he wishes to have proof of his eligibility or when (if) he takes office he will stand down from all military operations. My dad and other high ranking NCO's will stand down unless there is proof given to them. When he phoned the CA Obama headquarters he was told that they already won CA so it doesn’t matter and they hung up on him. This made my father very angry. My father doesn’t hold grudges because of color or race, when he looks a man in the eyes he considers that man an individual and a soul under heaven. My father is extremely fair minded, he just wants an answer to a question, if Barack Obama keeps hiding it, then my father will fight him all the way no matter what the cost to him personally, for him it will be a matter of principle.

Can I ask you something? Does your father question any of the other candidates citizenship? Does he question Sarah Palin's husbands commitment to the Union (as there are suggestions that he supports the secession of Alaska from the USA) or is that unfair on her? Do you not think that some might consider it impertinent that an Officer would question the citizenship of a Senator of the USA, (who has already had to humilitaingly show people his birth certificate for public view, as if Sarah Palin would be asked the same thing), based on hystercial accusations from partisan political commentators? Do you really think anyone would question his bonfides if he was white? I am sure your father is an honourable man, but he may be misguided on this occasion. I am not au fait with the facts so

I did not mean to appear angry with what I wrote. I think I typed my original post more in fear than anything else. I don't want race riots, or assassinations, or depression, or prolonged recession. I don't think that simply because Barack Obama is black we will automatically have race riots; I think it depends on what he does while he's in office and how it’s perceived. I do think he will be assassinated, shamefully for us Americans we have the NEO-Nazis, which I think are an evil group that I'd like to see added to our list of enemies in our war on terror, and you can add white supremacists to that list too, as well as black supremacists just to be fair.

I am going to vote for McCain I think he's the best man for the job of all we have to select from. I think he can do more to help the infrastructure and not over burden us in taxes, I think he will work to create jobs in industries that will sustain our future.

I think McCain and Obama are very similar except with Obama we will get the social engineering and liberal mindset and from what I can see about liberalism it costs too much, gives little in return and seems to keep the poor in the poor house.

Of course you are perfectly entitled to vote McCain, its a fascinating election to watch from the outside, and John McCain seems to be a perfectly honouable, decent, and good man. As he is also at pains to point out about Obama. I don't think either of them is the anti-christ, or a socialist, or a fascist war monger, or a closet terrorist, or a muslim, or a gun toting christian right wing bigot; or an extreme liberal, or a close-minded creationist "whack-job:.

However, with Sarah Palin, I am not so sure.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:28 pm

Also, I just wanted to ask. There is a constant accusation made against Barak Obama that he is "elitist" while multi-millionaire friend of big business John McCain is "A man of the people". So explain to me how a pennyless black kid brought up with no father by his white mother, who apparently got him up at 4am to study and read, and who spends most of his career trying to improve the lot of the poor of Chicago is "elitist"? Is it because he is educated and is able to write books? Thats not being elitist, that being intelligent, thats not being part of an elite.

I thought thats what being typically American is all about, in coming from no-where and through hard work and self-reliance becoming educated and ending up in the senate. Is that not a hugely positive story for Americans? I know that no black guy from Dublin is going to be elected Prime minister in my lifetime, it just wouldn't happen here, I think the Obama story demonstrates why people have always admired America.

By the way, I also know that McCain has been a very distinguished public servant in the military and in politics, I am not taking away from him, I just fail to understand why anyone who appears to enjoy reading books, and standing for public office is considered "elitist". You actually need to be intelligent to run a country properly (as the last 8 years should clearly demonstrate).

In Europe we normally consider candidates who are cultured and intelligent as being admirable, not perhaps the best person for the job, but certainly not to be sneered at because they may enjoy the more intellectual pursuits (like reading and writing, and reading newspapers once in a while, and knowing where other countries are, and who lives in them, you know the sort of thing).

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:31 pm

BTS;1040369 wrote: WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Things that NEED a bUMP in the KNIGHT!!!!

Wow is all I can say.

*NOTE TO BTS*....Make SURE none of my grandchildren get a good ol pep talk from "Good OL Nomad..............EVER"

WOW!!!!!!!!!

Yea, pretty radical.

Questioning ideas...........what a dink I am.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:41 pm

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/image ... ap.cnn.jpg

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:07 pm

Accountable;1041257 wrote: In 1988 Americans of Greek heritage turned out in record numbers to vote overwhelmingly for Dukakis. :yh_glasse

Exactly!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:18 pm

Galbally;1041273 wrote: You may be right, but I think he (Obama) will win, but not by a landslide by any means, and its not a forgone conclusion.

As to Obama not being respected by the British people, thats rubbish, firstly they will love him, as he is charismatic and says things Europeans like to hear.

.

Rubbish Dr gallbladder.

The only reason i said he won't get the respect of the British government etc, is because of what i have said many times before.

He is not qualified financially to cope with the economic crisis he will inherit. Gordon Brown is. Gordon Brown will end up running rings around him instead of working with him.

Also, to want to hold the white flag up to any aggressor is playing with fire. Again, he does not have the experience to deal with crisis of security. If Bush could not protect America from a 9/11, then Obama has no chance. Europe will also run rings around him at the UN.

He is weak and changes his speeches to suit who ever he's talking to.

What he is saying now about 'tough times being ahead', then 10 out of 10 for repeating exactly what Brown and Darling were saying weeks ago.

The only reason McCain will lose, if he does, is down to BUSH. McCain has unfortunatly inherited his legacy. It's like saying Brown is Labour and another Blair.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:03 pm

You know folks about today's best thing was for the Phillies to have their World Series parade in downtown Philly with over 3 million people attending and guess what we all had in common? Not having to listen to 2 blowhards on tv constantly. It was a major relief and nobody in that town gave a rat's A$$. The excitement was overwhelming.

Post by **spot** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:59 am

Hoss;1041262 wrote: I don't think he will do it the right way, his kind of help is to try to equalize things by redistributing the resources we have. You can't take from the rich and give to the poor, you have to encourage the rich to willingly give to the poor or it won’t work.

On a minor point, it does work perfectly well. It's what we do in the UK for instance. There are very few citizens here who can't claim sufficient social supplement payments to keep themselves housed and fed, all paid for from taxation on those wealthier than they are. Some of these citizens are incapable of meaningful work by reason of ill health or old age or witlessness, some are between jobs. The idea of surviving on charity rather than claiming a legal benefit would be considered totally demeaning, it's why the national benefit system was set up sixty years ago. Going cap in hand to a Charity Commission and begging a panel of your social betters is how it used to be. We used to have Workhouses too.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:26 am

oscar;1041351 wrote: Rubbish Dr gallbladder.

The only reason i said he won't get the respect of the British government etc, is because of what i have said many times before.

He is not qualified financially to cope with the economic crisis he will inherit. Gordon Brown is. Gordon Brown will end up running rings around him instead of working with him.

Also, to want to hold the white flag up to any aggressor is playing with fire. Again, he does not have the experience to deal with crisis of security. If Bush could not protect America from a 9/11, then Obama has no chance. Europe will also run rings around him at the UN.

He is weak and changes his speeches to suit who ever he's talking to.

What he is saying now about 'tough times being ahead', then 10 out of 10 for repeating exactly what Brown and Darling were saying weeks ago.

The only reason McCain will lose, if he does, is down to BUSH. McCain has unfortunatly inherited his legacy. It's like saying Brown is Labour and another Blair.

I'm sorry Oscar, but if you really think that a British Prime Minister is going to run rings around any US President your delusional, you get told to jump, you ask how high, thats your country's role in the modern world.

I am quite sure that the people in charge in the US (on both sides) are quite aware of the economic situation and what probably lies ahead, unfortunately some of them want to try and "front it out" in the same way they have been fronting out a lot of international issues, while some realize that a new more realistic approach is going to have to be taken. I think that fault line actually runs across party lines.

What I can tell you is that they won't be asking the British for advice. Your country thinks its a "staunch indespensible ally"; they think your a weak, little, socialist rainy island full of repressed homosexuals quoting shakespeare. They only think your useful because you do what your told, and act as America's bitch in god damn "Yurope". Seriously thats precisely what they think. Which is what makes British sycophancy about America all the more humiliating.

Also, just because Obama is not a swaggering pretend cowboy, nor a neo-liberal super hawk; or because he is untested in high office (which goes for all of them, none of them has been President before that so thats a spurious argument); that doesn't mean that he is weak, quite the opposite. He may turn out to be weak, but I suspect that a lot of people will be in for a shock as he strikes me a intelligent realist, a consensus builder, but also possibly someone quite prepared to use his nations power diplomatically and militarily if thats called for.

In any case, whoever is elected a more realistic US foreign policy is required if that country wants to repair its influence. The rest of the world stopped listening to George Bush years ago, now it seems that Americans have also stopped listening to him, hopefully they will elect someone who isn't going to continue the same policies as he had, and which have failed so spectacularly.

Don't be fooled into thinking that machismo, and bluster is what makes a nation strong, its a cohesive society, a wise foreign policy, a strong economy, and using your real power at the possible maximum advatange with the minimum cost to yourself. Also, being nice to your allies if you want them to be nice to you is also a wise idea.

Bush didn't protect America from 9/11, no one saw it coming, that was a collective failure, its unfair to just blame Bush, he is not to blame for a horrific act of mass muderers; however, the Bush Administration's response to 9/11 was to waste his nation's treasure, his people's lives, and worldwide US political influence on a war against a non-existent threat in Iraq, that was criminal negligence.

Now the inevitable consequences of Iraq (i.e. a generation of millions of traumatized, brutalized young Iraqi boys in that country are going to grow up with one collective memory, how their nation was invaded, humiliated and destroyed) are going to have to be factored into an already dire strategic situation in that region for Western influence.

In the meanwhile the real war, which is in Pakistan and Afganistan (and the West is losing) has been neglected, the NATO alliance has been undermined by stupid antagonistic policies in this war on terror, and the money required to actually prosecute the real war against Islamic fundamentalism is no longer there and we need to get more loans from China and the Arabs to fight other Arabs and some Persians, brillant, brilliant, brilliant. :-5

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:36 am

Galbally;1041511 wrote: you get told to jump, you ask how high, thats your country's role in the modern world.

Thats how it should be at FG.

Jump spock jump......good boy :-4

el guapo · Post by **el guapo** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:43 am

YouTube - The Barack Obama Song

for the obame fans

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:14 am

spot;1041482 wrote: On a minor point, it does work perfectly well. It's what we do in the UK for instance.Another minor point you keep ignoring: We're not the UK. Monarchy works perfectly well in the UK, too.

Post by **spot** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:36 am

Accountable;1041692 wrote: Another minor point you keep ignoring: We're not the UK. Monarchy works perfectly well in the UK, too.

The words I was responding to were "You can't take from the rich and give to the poor, you have to encourage the rich to willingly give to the poor or it won’t work" - it obviously can work, I gave an example where it does. It's more a matter of words than anything, I didn't like the "can't" and "won't".

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:53 am

Galbally;1041511 wrote: I'm sorry Oscar, but if you really think that a British Prime Minister is going to run rings around any US President your delusional, you get told to jump, you ask how high, thats your country's role in the modern world.

I am quite sure that the people in charge in the US (on both sides) are quite aware of the economic situation and what probably lies ahead, unfortunately some of them want to try and "front it out" in the same way they have been fronting out a lot of international issues, while some realize that a new more realistic approach is going to have to be taken. I think that fault line actually runs across party lines.

What I can tell you is that they won't be asking the British for advice. Your country thinks its a "staunch indespensible ally"; they think your a weak, little, socialist rainy island full of repressed homosexuals quoting shakespeare. They only think your useful because you do what your told, and act as America's bitch in god damn "Yurope". Seriously thats precisely what they think. Which is what makes British sycophancy about America all the more humiliating.

Also, just because Obama is not a swaggering pretend cowboy, nor a neo-liberal super hawk; or because he is untested in high office (which goes for all of them, none of them has been President before that so thats a spurious argument); that doesn't mean that he is weak, quite the opposite. He may turn out to be weak, but I suspect that a lot of people will be in for a shock as he strikes me a intelligent realist, a consensus builder, but also possibly someone quite prepared to use his nations power diplomatically and militarily if thats called for.

In any case, whoever is elected a more realistic US foreign policy is required if that country wants to repair its influence. The rest of the world stopped listening to George Bush years ago, now it seems that Americans have also stopped listening to him, hopefully they will elect someone who isn't going to continue the same policies as he had, and which have failed so spectacularly.

Don't be fooled into thinking that machismo, and bluster is what makes a nation strong, its a cohesive society, a wise foreign policy, a strong economy, and using your real power at the possible maximum advatange with the minimum cost to yourself. Also, being nice to your allies if you want them to be nice to you is also a wise idea.

Bush didn't protect America from 9/11, no one saw it coming, that was a collective failure, its unfair to just blame Bush, he is not to blame for a horrific act of mass muderers; however, the Bush Administration's response to 9/11 was to waste his nation's treasure, his people's lives, and worldwide US political influence on a war against a non-existent threat in Iraq, that was criminal negligence.

Now the inevitable consequences of Iraq (i.e. a generation of millions of traumatized, brutalized young Iraqi boys in that country are going to grow up with one collective memory, how their nation was invaded, humiliated and destroyed) are going to have to be factored into an already dire strategic situation in that region for Western influence.

In the meanwhile the real war, which is in Pakistan and Afganistan (and the West is losing) has been neglected, the NATO alliance has been undermined by stupid antagonistic policies in this war on terror, and the money required to actually prosecute the real war against Islamic fundamentalism is no longer there and we need to get more loans from China and the Arabs to fight other Arabs and some Persians, brillant, brilliant, brilliant. :-5

We all know your just jealous because you live in a tiny tiny little principality somewhere in the English Sea.

I shall deal with you Dr Gallstone when i get home from work.

:p:p

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:26 am

oscar;1041351 wrote: Rubbish Dr gallbladder.

The only reason i said he won't get the respect of the British government etc, is because of what i have said many times before.

He is not qualified financially to cope with the economic crisis he will inherit. Gordon Brown is. Gordon Brown will end up running rings around him instead of working with him.

Also, to want to hold the white flag up to any aggressor is playing with fire. Again, he does not have the experience to deal with crisis of security. If Bush could not protect America from a 9/11, then Obama has no chance. Europe will also run rings around him at the UN.

He is weak and changes his speeches to suit who ever he's talking to.

What he is saying now about 'tough times being ahead', then 10 out of 10 for repeating exactly what Brown and Darling were saying weeks ago.

The only reason McCain will lose, if he does, is down to BUSH. McCain has unfortunatly inherited his legacy. It's like saying Brown is Labour and another Blair.

Since you are british and not americanI don't feel the same need to worry about your sensitivities and predisposition to take every difference in opinion as being a personal attack. How shall I put this in response to your post? Bolllocks, cobblers, havers stop reading the daily mail which is a right wing tory rag whose only redeeming feature is the ocasional cartoon.

Gordon Brown is an arsehole that was in the Blair cabinet right from the beginning. He supported that lying peice of ****. If you think he had no choice in the matter you know little about our political system. The prime minister does not have the same power as an american president, parliament is sovereign but the chancellor is an equal to the prime minister if he wants to stop something going through his resignation from the cabinet is enough to bring down a government.

Gordon Brown is a charlatan creating an image of financial expertise that hides the reality. Since 1997 he has been taking 5 billion a year from private and company pension funds to finance his tax cuts. He has also had ten years to address the problems in our financial services, yes you can trace the origin back to reradan and thatcher but he did sweet FA to correct it. It is on his watch (as the americans like to put it) that the FSA let the banks get away it by the simple expedient of doing bugger all. Gordon Brown-in case you were not aware as chancellor is RESPONSIBLE. He's a tosser no matter what the daily mail thinks.

GW attacked the wrong country after 911 and we were stupid enough to go along with it thanks to blair and also GORDON BROWN we got sucked in as well. At least Barack Obama had the guts to stand uo and say the invasion of iraq was wrong. In the climate in america at the time that took a lot of guts-at least he appears to have the moral courage to do do.

If Obama wins it would be remarkable enough that such a historically racist country could elect a black president that it would go a long way to restore american credibility with the world. If it's McCain Palin. look forward to the ending of Nato, Russia and China seriously starting to re-arm the extension 0f the cong=flict in the middle east and al queda dancing in the streets for joy.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:51 pm

I have just finished work and i don't know who to answer first..... The Haggis botherer or the peat bog leprechaun. I shall muse over my late supper.

Catch yer folks soon :p:p

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:22 pm

gmc;1041796 wrote: Since you are british and not americanI don't feel the same need to worry about your sensitivities and predisposition to take every difference in opinion as being a personal attack. How shall I put this in response to your post? Bolllocks, cobblers, havers stop reading the daily mail which is a right wing tory rag whose only redeeming feature is the ocasional cartoon.

Gordon Brown is an arsehole that was in the Blair cabinet right from the beginning. He supported that lying peice of ****. If you think he had no choice in the matter you know little about our political system. The prime minister does not have the same power as an american president, parliament is sovereign but the chancellor is an equal to the prime minister if he wants to stop something going through his resignation from the cabinet is enough to bring down a government.

Gordon Brown is a charlatan creating an image of financial expertise that hides the reality. Since 1997 he has been taking 5 billion a year from private and company pension funds to finance his tax cuts. He has also had ten years to address the problems in our financial services, yes you can trace the origin back to reradan and thatcher but he did sweet FA to correct it. It is on his watch (as the americans like to put it) that the FSA let the banks get away it by the simple expedient of doing bugger all. Gordon Brown-in case you were not aware as chancellor is RESPONSIBLE. He's a tosser no matter what the daily mail thinks.

GW attacked the wrong country after 911 and we were stupid enough to go along with it thanks to blair and also GORDON BROWN we got sucked in as well. At least Barack Obama had the guts to stand uo and say the invasion of iraq was wrong. In the climate in america at the time that took a lot of guts-at least he appears to have the moral courage to do do.

If Obama wins it would be remarkable enough that such a historically racist country could elect a black president that it would go a long way to restore american credibility with the world. If it's McCain Palin. look forward to the ending of Nato, Russia and China seriously starting to re-arm the extension 0f the cong=flict in the middle east and al queda dancing in the streets for joy.

Your right about one thing gmc, you need not worry about my sensitivitie's.

Something that does strike me, when ever we have a thread about the Presidential campaign, it always ends up as the Irish and Scottish attacking Gordon Brown. I am not going to bore our American pals by extoling the virtue's of Gordon Brown and take the thread off on a tangent other than to say:.

If anyone had said to me a year ago that i'd be defending Gordon Brown, i'd have laughed. I also put him in the same camp as that lying scheming bastard Blair but it's his actions in the past year that have made me change my mind about him.

I am in total agreement with you that he was responsible for the economy under Blair and yes he could have done something about it. What? is my next question.

If we believe what we read in all the press over the past 5 years of the in cabinet hatred between Blair and Brown, for Brown to quit, would have been disaterous for his own political career. I make no excuses for the fact that all Brown's moves over the past two years at least have been to oust Blair and put himself in No 10.

To quit would be to destroy the Labour government and do himself out of a job, short of him defecting to the Torie's, he's never have got the take over.

What he did was self preservation. He didn't have to agree with Blair, he just needed to hang on in there long enough to force Blair out. For that, i believe he has been quite canny.

Gordon Brown borrowed far less money than any other European Country. I don't believe we have ever had a Chancellor capable of balancing the books. Compared to Europe, he has been and is in a afr better position than any other European Country.

I see Labour are gaining in the polls again today.

Post by **spot** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:23 pm

Hoss;1042281 wrote: Here we have opportunities to pull oneself up by the bootstraps!

I could offer you many examples of British entrepreneurs but I'll stick with my favourite, Richard Branson. If he asked me for my last thousand pounds he'd have it, he's earned the right.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:33 pm

Hoss;1042281 wrote: It won't work here without killing the American Spirit. You guys are probably used to accepting handouts that keep you classed at levels that you can't get out of. Here we have opportunities to pull oneself up by the bootstraps!

The Dhs system in this country is a maze of various benifits where even if you work and your income falls below standard, you can claim 'family credit' and have your income topped up.

I don't actually know of any country that has the generosity of a benifit system as we do here.

That's the difference between the British and American. We don't class it as 'handouts'.

We pay from our salery a national insurence stamp. Should you find yourself out of work or on a lower income, you have a legal right to claim the benifits that you have paid into.

Yes, a lot of bone idle immigrants take advantage, but by the main, most countrie's envy our benifit system and would dearly love to have such a policy.

A large part of our governments revenue is invested back into jobs, something else that other countrie's envy.

Without such a benifit system, you just create classes and revert back to 'upper', middle and lower classes, something our country wanted abolished.

All the time you have any person feel they are excepting handouts and should be bloody grateful while they are at it, they will never pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

To catagorise a 'lower class' does no more than to demean and undermine ambition. That's why America has more 'poor' citizens than a lot of countrie's.

Post by **spot** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:41 pm

oscar;1042300 wrote: Yes, a lot of bone idle immigrants take advantageOn a point of information, the tax system takes more from immigrants than it pays out in benefits to them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:43 pm

Personally, i believe that Obama would make the worst President since Kennedy.

I also see again, McCain gaining in the polls.

Frankly, if this is what America is going to vote in, a man who changes his mind and allie's to suit, i'll just wait for the bomb.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:46 pm

This little story is especially for my peat bog trog leprechauan, galbally

It isn't a crime to call the Irish leprechauns: Court clears teenager of racially harassing neighbour | Mail Online

:p:p:p:p:p

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:56 pm

spot;1042305 wrote: On a point of information, the tax system takes more from immigrants than it pays out in benefits to them.

In the main Spot, but there always the percentage that do take advantage.

I had a very interesting conversation tonight at work. Nothing to do with this thread but a bizzare situation. An in depth discussion about Obama between myself, the British, the turkish muslims, Pakistan muslims and an Iranian. Very interesting.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:47 pm

spot;1042290 wrote: I could offer you many examples of British entrepreneurs but I'll stick with my favourite, Richard Branson. If he asked me for my last thousand pounds he'd have it, he's earned the right.
Yes, and without any government money or interference.

Post by **spot** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:58 pm

Accountable;1042566 wrote: Yes, and without any government money or interference.

When have I ever suggested that entrepreneurs be given government money or interference?

The areas in which he makes profits are regulated. That's all to the good. It means he can apply proper safety practices without being undercut by fly-by-night cheapskates looking for a quick buck.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:08 pm

spot;1042623 wrote: When have I ever suggested that entrepreneurs be given government money or interference?

The areas in which he makes profits are regulated. That's all to the good. It means he can apply proper safety practices without being undercut by fly-by-night cheapskates looking for a quick buck.
My statement was in support and admiration of Mr. Branson. So many entrepeneurs, and even more large businesses, go for government grants, loans, or some other way of getting tax money to fund their schemes. Not him. Not once.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:10 pm

spot;1042623 wrote: When have I ever suggested that entrepreneurs be given government money or interference?

The areas in which he makes profits are regulated. That's all to the good. It means he can apply proper safety practices without being undercut by fly-by-night cheapskates looking for a quick buck.

Why do i always think of 'Freddie Laker' and Concorde at times like this??

Post by **spot** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:16 pm

Nothing wrong with Sir Fred, he broke British Airways in the long run even if they did break him in the short.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:43 pm

No, I do not think so. I think that whoever wins, the American people will support.

The Civil War, those days are long gone. And it was fought for different reasons" slavery, state's rights, etc.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:45 pm

Many of the Secret Service have families, Hoss.