So ... Obama vs Mitt Mormoney

Personally, I don't agree with the bailout either. I think the government is exercising too much power and might do more harm with this in the long run. By spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this -- money the government does not have -- it will have longer term consequences such as the further depreciation of the value of the dollar.



But there's the thing -- I'm sure when many of those innocent men were convicted the jury truly believed they were putting the right person in jail, but they weren't. Who's to say there is no doubt of their guilt?



I agree that abortion is usually, but not always, a selfish act. Like I said, I support abortions during early stages of development, but I would like us to get to a point where abortions are not needed. I think this starts with abandoning the ridiculous abstinence only education that pervades our public schools. Teenagers need to be taught about safer sex practices. Humans are sexual creatures and teenagers are horny (I know, I was one just a few years ago), and teens are going to have sex whether law makers like it or not.

There are so many unwanted teen pregnancies, and the teens often can't deal with the stress of having a baby. They end up having to drop out of school, can't pay their bills, often end up with in bad relationships, and the child grows up in poverty. The other alternative if the child is born is an orphanage (or in some awful cases left abandoned shortly after birth) which are typically overcrowded and underfuned. For many of these children all of the options are very bleak. Is this always the case? Obviously not, but it is a significant problem.



I agree. Politics can bring out the nasty side in people because we are often discussing that which we are very passionate about, but the members here seem to belong to a more civil class of people and don't let themselves be run away with their emotions.

Thanks for your response.

My view as an outsider is that this war was was wrong to begin with. Just what is the US doing in that country? Overthrowing a dictator and doing a nation building exercise? Bringing democracy to the middle east?
I tend to believe Republican Ron Paul's argument that all this hatred for the US has come about due to years of its dangerous foreign policy that meddles in the affairs of other nations, overthrowing their governments and such. And yet people will choose to believe the idea of "they attacked us for our freedom and values" because that's what has been sold to them and they think it's patriotic to think so.



I would say that what is more terrifying is the rapid crumbling of the economy that cannot sustain this war anymore. This argument about "we got into this so we better stay the course until it's over" ignores one thing-- at what cost?
Every day this war continues is more billions of dollars of expense. Can the US afford it given that the country is broke? Once again, I like the argument by Ron Paul that the US can do more good to a country with diplomatic talks, sanctions... rather than a war.
Do the Iraqi people want all of this? Every day that the war continues is also another day of civilian casualties for them. Don't you think that this is going to lead to more resentment against the US? The US may build roads and provide water and infrastructure and all that but if one's family members are no more do you think that person will forgive the US? It's a little scary how this thing is slowly turning into USA vs. the Islamic nations.




I will disagree. He kept saying that fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when the crisis deepened with Lehman going bankrupt last Monday, he change his definition of what he meant by fundamentals. That is ridiculous. It's like he can say whatever he wants and later twist the definition.



His military record aside, I think that he has stooped way too low in those Obama attacks on lipstick/Palin and sex education. When he went on national television and continued to claim that Obama was referring to Palin about the lipstick comment, then that smacks of dishonesty and desperation to do anything to get to the top post. I know it's a silly issue but when he continues to lie about this it's scary what he can do with more pressing issues that aren't as transparent as this.

The Reverend Wright issue was probably something that the media liked to hype and I don't place much importance on Obama's past with the church. I don't see how it is going to affect his policies if he were President. I thought that his speech on race was simply great.

Yes indeed. It took a while, but finally there's some interesting discussion here about the issues end points (for a foreigner too!). Thanks!

Not actually into that stuff SO much as to call myself a supporter of X or Y, but yeah, i can only shudder with the thoughts of McCain taking over the already fragile in all aspects US over a more fragile world at this point of history.

I'd agree; but it's sad to observe that at the end of the day, it's a choice between who's the less crap.

At this point, whatever candidate will win, will likely become the most reviled president in centuries, as the current economic crisis will ask some very hefty sacrifices from joe public.
Arguably this would be more detrimental to a Republican candidate (where tax cuts are always a HUGE selling point) than a Democratic one, but that is only reasoning after the fact.
Both parties know full well they have a very nasty message to relay, and I'll be very interested to see how they're going to package it in the coming few weeks.

That said, having looked closely at the issues that matter to me as a European and on a global scale, I have to say that my balance is shifting from McCain to Obama, the main reason being that while McCain is now more and more propagating the (classically Republican) "America First!" credo (he wants to expand the military, but keep 'em on American soil), it's Obama who's coming out more and more on making the world "safe for democracy" (with some pretty strong language against Pakistan and Iran, which I wholeheartedly support).

At this point I'm not sure.
Generally i would have said that for Americans the best thing would be a McCain administration, but with the mortgage crisis and with the now almost inevitable iron grip the Treasury will keep on a considerable segment of American banks, it's unlikely there will be an economic rise (or at least one that is sustained by a solid base). Tax cuts and goverment withdrawal combined with pumping money in an open well will recreate the same cycle we've now seen come to bust.
While a democratic government at this point will most liely hurt more Americans (financially) now then benefit, the long-term need is such that this may just be what the doctor ordered.

Did any of all those presidents who sent out their armies at the edge of the world each time depriving the country's economy and youth for absolutely no other reason than the government's egoistical financial plans, ever pre-declared that as a part of their pre-election campaign?

Your assuming Americans know where the edge of the world is. Did Bush have any idea where EYE-Raq and EYE-Ran were before things kicked off?

Abortion and Capitol punishment are just button pushers!
Thomas

Again, it's tempting to think that Bush is a complete idiot. He hams it up a bit on Tv for sure. But don't forget his father was a director of the CIA for many years before being president and intervening in Iraq in the early 90s. I suspect W can read a map of the world with that kind of background.

Its been that way since 2000.

The benefit of hindsight: at the time, a very compelling case was made that teaming up with the greatest mass murderer of all time (Stalin) would possibly not win the hearts and minds of the public...

This country keeps hoping and keeps hoping and keeps hoping
Thomas

I'd go for the teenager. They generally have better music than fascists.

You sure Martijn?