Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Maybe it's harder, but looking good is worth it.

Amen!

[hectorberlioz]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Holy cow. That's disgusting. And very sad.

[The Gaffer]

Oh yeah I saw that on the news today. That's a new low for humanity.

Perhaps it is a sign that they are getting desperate.

[The Telcontarion]

This is for all you who support Mcain.

You obviously don't realize that Mcain supports the war effort and that he would stay there for a hundred years if he had to, his words. Not only is this immoral but it would bankrupt the country, america can't afford that (it's not a world power anymore); hell the country would go bankrupt if we go into Iran. I really don't understand you people, help me please, help me to understand, because this point of view (let me be blunt) is held by a pack of uninformed moronic (let me not say-it would be flaming) and if you don't get your heads out of your rectums soon...well.....it really is going to be self evident isn't it, it really is.....

Enjoy your $50 a gallon gas ok, just enjoy it. That won't even be the worst of it, just enjoy it all.....

[The Telcontarion]

Deleted by the poster, a accidental double post.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

This is for all you who support Mcain.

You obviously don't realize that Mcain supports the war effort and that he would stay there for a hundred years if he had to, his words. Not only is this immoral but it would bankrupt the country, america can't afford that (it's not a world power anymore); hell the country would go bankrupt if we go into Iran. I really don't understand you people, help me please, help me to understand, because this point of view (let me be blunt) is held by a pack of uninformed moronic (let me not say-it would be flaming) and if you don't get your heads out of your rectums soon...well.....it really is going to be self evident isn't it, it really is.....

Enjoy your $50 a gallon gas ok, just enjoy it. That won't even be the worst of it, just enjoy it all.....

Aw, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

I think most people realize that McCain supports the war effort- here, anyway, though surprisingly Republicans who disagree with Bush on the war tend to be more strongly for McCain.

As for the war bankrupting America- if WWII didn't, Iraq is not likely to. The US could quite easily afford this war if it got its fiscal house in order- for example, if it still had Bill Clinton's surplus (ahem).

America not a world power anymore?!?!

If they ain't, who is? They're not as pre-eminent as they were after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but they're still far and away the most powerful country in the world.

Yes, attacking Iran is a really bad idea, but hardly one that would cause the collapse of the country.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Aw, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

I think most people realize that McCain supports the war effort- here, anyway, though surprisingly Republicans who disagree with Bush on the war tend to be more strongly for McCain.

As for the war bankrupting America- if WWII didn't, Iraq is not likely to. The US could quite easily afford this war if it got its fiscal house in order- for example, if it still had Bill Clinton's surplus (ahem).

America not a world power anymore?!?!

If they ain't, who is? They're not as pre-eminent as they were after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but they're still far and away the most powerful country in the world.

Yes, attacking Iran is a really bad idea, but hardly one that would cause the collapse of the country.

The only reason why america was not bankrupt by world war 2 was:

"According to my parents, who lived through the depression, it was already pretty much over by the time the war started. But I haven't researched this myself. I know that our armed forces were upgrading their equipment during the 30's, and that, along with other government programs, helped to end the depression. Nearer to the start of the war, we supplied England (and later on, the USSR) with military aid, which helped our economy."

The proof:

Gold standard from peak to crisis (1901–1932)

Abandoning the standard to fund the war

The British government ended the convertibility of Bank of England notes to gold in 1914 to fund military operations during World War I. By the end of the war Britain was on a series of fiat currency regulations, which monetized Postal Money Orders and Treasury Notes. The government later called these notes banknotes, which are different from US Treasury notes. The United States government took similar measures. After the war Germany, having lost much of its gold in reparations, could no longer coin gold "Reichsmarks" and moved to paper currency, although the Weimar Republic later introduced the "rentenmark" and later the gold-backed reichsmark in an effort to control hyperinflation.

In the UK the pound was returned to the gold standard in 1925, by a somewhat reluctant Winston Churchill. Although a higher gold price and significant inflation had followed the WWI ending of the gold standard, Churchill returned to the standard at the pre-war gold price. For five years prior to 1925 the gold price was managed downward to the pre-war level, causing deflation throughout those countries using the Pound Sterling. This deflation reached across the remnants of the British Empire everywhere the Pound Sterling was still used as the primary unit of account. The British government abandoned the standard again on September 20, 1931. Sweden abandoned the gold standard in October 1931, the U.S. in 1933, and other nations were, to one degree or another, forced off the gold standard.

Depression and World War II

British hesitate to return to gold standard

During the 1939–1942 period, the UK depleted much of its gold stock in purchases of munitions and weaponry on a "cash and carry" basis from the U.S. and other nations.[citation needed] This depletion of the UK's reserve convinced Winston Churchill of the impracticality of returning to a pre-war style gold standard. John Maynard Keynes, who had argued against such a gold standard, became increasingly influential. He proposed a more wide ranging version of the "stability pact" style gold standard, later expressed in the Bretton Woods Agreement.

So...

America didn't go bankrupt because it was a major exporter of weapons and other goods during world war 2. Also most countries relatively speaking, recently got of the gold standard and the dollar was stronger then than it is today. An ounce of gold in 1939 was $35, today it is $920. Mater of fact over the last 5 years the value of gold has gone from $350 an ounce to $920. That's a runaway rise, an exponential rise; meaning runaway inflation. Do you know where gold is prjected to be in the next 2 years, $3500 an ounce, get that through your heads (lol...stay in the middle east for a 100 years, ha!!!).

Listen up, you Mcainites and Romneyites, your getting an education today:

Fifty Years Since Korea:
Fifty Years of Presidential Wars

Has a president the constitutional authority
to initiate a conflict?

By Paul W. Lovinger

A half-century late, atrocities from the Korean war have made the news: first, massacres of civilians by U.S. troops; next, killings of political prisoners without trial by South Korean soldiers and police. Fifty years have passed since President Truman began what he termed a "police action" to stop "aggression" on June 27, 1950. It became a major, three-year war, in which North Korea and Communist China were fought to a stalemate. And it was the first U.S. war in which a president asserted a right to start it.

Truman took his action without asking Congress for a declaration of war, contrary to what his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had done on December 8, 1941. Truman said a United Nations resolution gave him authority. But he had ordered armed forces to Korea before the U. N. acted. Moreover, the U.S. never made any agreement with the U.N. to provide armed forces. And anyway, how could Congress delegate away its lawful authority?

Korea was the first in a score of foreign wars entered by presidents without authorization by Congress. The total of unauthorized military or paramilitary operations reaches several score more. The Korean war and later presidents' wars, including Vietnam, took millions of lives, about 113,000 of them American. Congress's failure to reverse Truman's decision established a routine in which (1) the president assumes dictatorial control over war and peace and (2) Congress submits to the seizure of its exclusive, constitutional power to declare war.

President Clinton has ordered wars or acts of war in eight countries, including Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Sudan. In 1999, he was fighting Yugoslavia and Iraq simultaneously. He began bombing the Iraqis in 1993 and continues to strike them, and he is intervening in Colombia's civil conflict. He may have nearly started another Korean war, in June 1994: Kim Young-Sam, then South Korea's president, told a Korean newspaper that he had talked Clinton out of plans to bomb the north, Insight magazine reported (6-26-00). Sometimes Clinton has sought support from foreign leaders or international bodies, never obtaining prior approval by the one body that could constitutionally authorize such acts: Congress.

Yet nearly all political candidates are silent on a matter that tears at the heart of our constitutional system: presidential war. Although such autocracy contradicts democracy, few Democrats in politics object. Nor do many Republican politicos protest that our republic's president has assumed the age-old power of monarchs.

Neither Governor George W. Bush nor Vice President Albert Gore has addressed the issue of the war power specifically. However, each has indicated in campaign debates that as president he would send armed forces wherever and whenever he alone decided it was in the interests of the United States to do so.

Founders vs. presidents

"The Congress shall have power ... To declare war," says the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8). To declare war means to initiate war. That was established usage in 1787, when the Constitution was drawn up. The president is "commander in chief of the army and navy" (Article II, Section 2).

Alexander Hamilton contrasted the president's military role under the Constitution -- "nothing more than ... first General and Admiral"--with the British king's power to declare war (The Federalist, 69). "Commander in chief" was not created with the Constitution but was already a century and a half old. It was always strictly a military rank, without the power to decide war and peace. Such power has been claimed for the president by modern revisionists, beginning in 1950 with the State Department, which sought to justify Truman's Korean action.

The founding fathers made abundantly clear that a president could not lawfully commit any hostile act--except to repel sudden invasion--without prior, formal approval by both houses of Congress. "... Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war," President Thomas Jefferson said (to Congress, 1805).

James Madison explained: History demonstrates that the executive is the governmental branch most prone to war. The Constitution "has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature" (letter to Jefferson, c. 1798).

Notorious transgressions included Polk's provocation of war with Mexico, McKinley's Philippine war, and many invasions of Latin America. But not until Truman in 1950 did any official argue that a president had the inherent right to initiate war.

Few condemned Truman's seizure of congressional authority or considered impeachment. Commentators praised his "courage." Some 54,000 American deaths were counted in Korea.

President Kennedy contemplated atom-bombing Russia over Cuban missiles. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon produced more than a decade of undeclared conflicts in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, dooming 58,000 Americans. Usually Congress gave the presidents whatever they asked, including a resolution supporting "peace" in southeast Asia after Johnson had sent bombers to war. Courts timidly ducked every lawsuit to enforce the Constitution.

Presidents engaging in unauthorized hostilities after Vietnam included Ford, in Cambodia's islands; Reagan, in El Salvador, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, and the Persian Gulf; and Bush in Panama.

Such actions would not necessarily be legal if authorized by Congress. Treaties binding on the U.S. ban aggression, require peaceful settlement of international disputes, and prohibit attacks on civilians. But allowing one man absolute power over war and peace, life and death -- in place of discussion and decision by 435 representatives and 100 senators -- makes war far more likely. Congress has declared only five general wars and authorized limited war relatively few times.

The framers designed our Constitution to make unnecessary wars unlikely, though their efforts now appear inadequate. As James Wilson, a framer of the Constitution, told the Pennsylvania ratifying convention in 1787, "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . ."

Ron Paul on the constitution, here

Prior to now they have been printing money none stop to finance all these wars, that's what you get when you don't have a gold standard - they could not print more gold, so they made the dollar and they just keep printing out of nothing. So the american dollar is not as strong as it was in 1939. Back then the dollar was 30 times stronger than it is now: Wow!!!

And if you don't think that inflation has not shown on the economy already think again. In new york the subway train used to be 15 cents, now it's $2 and they are talking about making it more right now. I remember when gas was a $1.19, now it's $3.99. Do you get it, america has gone as far as it can go on this monitary system of printing money and creating debt which is the most debt of any country in the world; did you not know this? Why, because we no longer export as much since almost all of our manufacturing has gone over seas and what used to be exports to us, we now manage it financially in taxes and tariffs as imports.

In ww2 we were exporting; the arms, the munitions etc. We were still building, expanding, climbing the mountain. Now we have been at the top, and there is no were else to go but down and we have been going down for sometime now, and on this side of the great mountain, it's steeper and goes farther below see level than the side on which we made our ascent.

It is over!!!! So keep loving Mcain, because he loves you right; at least, that's what he says.

[hectorberlioz]

My predictions:

Clinton comes out strong today. Why? Because the Barack thing is a phenomenon. It's not politics. His young people vote isn't reliable. When things get down to actually going to the voting booth, Hillary is going to at least eke out her victory. I could be wrong, but that's the danger of making predictions

McCain wins today. Why? Because Romney failed on so many levels: he's a good guy, but he looks like a jerk. (Okay, he has been a jerk on occasion, too).
He's smart and capable, but his [good] looks work against him. Some people just have a natural reaction against Romney for that reason. My dad is one of them (he won't admit it, but it's obvious).

McCain, for all his sins, is [seen as] authentic and gritty and a war hero. That's enough to overcome his problems.

For Mitt, his strengths aren't going to be trumpeted: nobody cares about running companies, nobody cares about the olympics, nobody cares about Masachussetts being saved because they wish it would sink into the flames.

He also walked into a very snooty trap set by Huckabee and McCain...and that is the 'Mitt is Mean' trap. Huckabee, at every campaign stop, has smeared Mitt Romney with his "jokes", saying for instance that Mitt can't eat fried chicken, that he looks like the guy that laid you off work...

The really stupid thing that Romney has done is react too strongly (and dishonestly) to this behind-the-scenes sliming. Now he's going around saying McCain is not a conservative. It looks desperate. It is desperate. And it just isn't going to carry any water...

Yes Mitt, McCain was dishonest about the "timetables", and he knew it, but he convinced people he was sincere in believing so... don't try to do the same if you can't convince people you believe it.

Pray for me as I try to endure the joyous celebration of my dad cheering McCain on.

[hectorberlioz]

James Dobson just gave an anti-endorsement to John McCain. Ouch

(heard it on the radio...trying to find the article)

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I want to see McCain take Mass. And Huckabee several southern states.

Obama and Clinton is going to be a close one, here, but I'm predicting Obama.

I wish you could have seen that crowd, hector. It was really amazing.

How many Super Tuesday voters do we have, here? Any of you voting absentee?

*raises hand as primary voter*

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I wish you could have seen that crowd, hector. It was really amazing.

See thats the thing...he has crowds. A lot of them are young people who won't bother voting. Mark my words


Romney apparently, pulled an all-nighter. AP story, written by the guy that Romney conflicted with at the Staples store.

[Mari]

Sis, what is an absentee vote? Voting blanc and thus not really voting?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Mari

Sis, what is an absentee vote? Voting blanc and thus not really voting?

No, if you live away from your voting location, for example away at college, you might have chosen to mail in a vote. The absentee ballots may have big influence in California, for example. Hillary was leading there when people would have mailed, but Obama is doing pretty well with late deciders. So it may be that he gets many of the people who vote today, but she wins. And they go by district there, it'll be a battle in every neighborhood.

Hector, why do you think the yoputh won't vote? Registration is insanely up. they're excited.

[Mari]

Thanks! Is it actually possible to vote blanc by the way? Here it is.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Hector, why do you think the yoputh won't vote? Registration is insanely up. they're excited.

I said nothing about the yoputh.

My theory is that while Barack is getting large crowds, the phenomenon is largely non-political. Barack's popularity has nothing to do with him being the next president, it has to do with "magic". An Obama rally is like a rock concert.

Clinton has a firm and steady base.

We'll see

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I said nothing about the yoputh.

My theory is that while Barack is getting large crowds, the phenomenon is largely non-political. Barack's popularity has nothing to do with him being the next president, it has to do with "magic". An Obama rally is like a rock concert.

Clinton has a firm and steady base.

We'll see

Indeed. The question is, is America really interested in policy, or is it interested in celebrity, and feeling good. McCain's message to Michigan was the truth. Those big manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and they need retraining. But they rejected him in favor of Romney's pretty stories. If the 'hope and pretty stories' vote shows up, we'll look at Romney and Obama. If the 'get it done' vote shows up, we'll look at McCain and Clinton. If the optimism splits by party, well, we'll have a good contrast in November, at least.

I'm predicting evangelicals and women will both get dumped until the conventions. if it isn't settled today, those groups will control the conventions, and I think women will call this election.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Indeed. The question is, is America really interested in policy, or is it interested in celebrity, and feeling good. McCain's message to Michigan was the truth. Those big manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and they need retraining. But they rejected him in favor of Romney's pretty stories. If the 'hope and pretty stories' vote shows up, we'll look at Romney and Obama. If the 'get it done' vote shows up, we'll look at McCain and Clinton. If the optimism splits by party, well, we'll have a good contrast in November, at least.

I'm predicting evangelicals and women will both get dumped until the conventions. if it isn't settled today, those groups will control the conventions, and I think women will call this election.

Even though McCain is the one sounding the "reach across the aisle" rhetoric? Mac has some pretty slurpy panders himself. Notice his sudden tough talk on the border fence...meanwhile, back at the ranch, he was cursing...""I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

Hey, that sounds like...pandering?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Even though McCain is the one sounding the "reach across the aisle" rhetoric? Mac has some pretty slurpy panders himself. Notice his sudden tough talk on the border fence...meanwhile, back at the ranch, he was cursing...""I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

Hey, that sounds like...pandering?

lol.

But no one is building the fence. He knows that. They don't have the votes in congress, so he can promise anything they want.

I didn't say Romney was pandering. I think he is, on the whole, a bright fella. I just disagree with some of his conclusions. But Huckabee and Paul both actually relate to evangelical issues. Romney is too... measured. Huckabee has his finger right on that, too.

I'd love to swat someone at Hillary central. How they expect that woman to win when every piece of literature makes her look like a humorless English Teacher, I do NOT know. A vote for Hillary looks like a vote for correct semi-colons. Guys, this is a CAMPAIGN. And TV is in color, these days.

Those things will, in the final analysis, matter more than any piece of policy ANYONE comes up with.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

A vote for Hillary looks like a vote for correct semi-colons.

She's got my vote!

* Eats shoots and leaves *