Presidental Politics

With the U.S. elections coming up, what issues are the most important to you when you cast your ballot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrgreatheart

With the U.S. elections coming up, what issues are the most important to you when you cast your ballot?

---

Truth & Honesty which is not indicative of Presidential elections. Promises promises and more promises and when those aren't accomplished the winner will blame the opposite party for blocking their efforts and if they can have another 4 yrs, they promise to get it done but 2 yrs into a President's 2nd term becomes their Lame Duck period and all eyes then turn to whomever is starting up their Campaign so 'We, the People' generally get what we've always gotten, nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

Truth & Honesty which is not indicative of Presidential elections. Promises promises and more promises and when those aren't accomplished the winner will blame the opposite party for blocking their efforts and if they can have another 4 yrs, they promise to get it done but 2 yrs into a President's 2nd term becomes their Lame Duck period and all eyes then turn to whomever is starting up their Campaign so 'We, the People' generally get what we've always gotten, nothing.

---

I agree completely. 100%. Sometimes it seems as though it's all an act and the joke is on us, the American people.

Integrity, consistency and a willingness to stand firm behind their principles are also qualities that I would add as well.

I like to see proven track records which show candidates not only talk the talk but that they walk the walk as well. For example, anti-war candidates who consistently vote for the war or politicians who say they believe in the Constitution, but then vote against it every chance they get - they are the ones I stay away from. It's a shame, but way too many politicians in the US fall into that category.

I couldn't agree more. I have to add that the rest of the world sees American politics as a gimmick. It's the same two parties. It's sad that people have to "pretend" to be religious to become president...as if one's religious beliefs determine his/her ability to become president. It's sad that politicians use the Constitution and their power to force personal beliefs (anti-abortion/ anti-premarital sex) down the throats of others. It's sad that people can toss terms like "pro-life" around and get away with it. How can one be pro-life and pro-war, pro-death penalty and pro-guns at the same time? This boggles my mind. No one bothers to call people on their hypocrisy. Sarah Palin hopes to overturn Roe v Wade and force pro-abstinence programs while she has engaged in premarital sex and so does her daughter. We cannot question her nor call her for her hypocrisy, since we're told it's "sexist." It's pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

I agree completely. 100%. Sometimes it seems as though it's all an act and the joke is on us, the American people.

Integrity, consistency and a willingness to stand firm behind their principles are also qualities that I would add as well.

I like to see proven track records which show candidates not only talk the talk but that they walk the walk as well. For example, anti-war candidates who consistently vote for the war or politicians who say they believe in the Constitution, but then vote against it every chance they get - they are the ones I stay away from. It's a shame, but way too many politicians in the US fall into that category.

---

Look I tired to make this as short as I could but it is what it is. But if you take the time to read this, you will gain a very valuable lesson about something you never knew before in Government, I promise..

The Hypocrisy of Politics I write about in depth on my Website. There are so many variables of why Americans especially are duped by our Government. I told my wife just this evening while driving home from the Tennis Courts that the majority of people have absolutely no clue who to vote for or why but relay upon those who have the biggest Microphone to tell them who they like and who they don't. To sum it up for now, all I'll say is at the beginning of every election cycle, pay close attention to who the mainstream Media seems to giving more airtime to.

When you understand the true relationship between Money & Government, you will then understand the World of Politics or as I refer to it, "The Political Wheel".

A Governor, Senator or State Representative who comes from a fiscally depressed region, will only lower unemployment, fund more social entitlements, provide increased medical coverage, reduce crime, provide shelter for the Homeless and attract small & large business when they begin to see the average tax paying blue collar citizen who probably got them into office will not keep them in office until they court large corporations.

Corporate America is America. The hard working American trying to live the American Dream must realize the American Dream is really a Nightmare. Whether Obama or McCain become President, nothing for us will change if either of them believe they can deny the influence Corporate money provides. We want the rich to pay more taxes. Well that sounds reasonable so why hasn't it happened? You know the answer already. I'm going to tell everyone a well kept secret. I will leave out certain parts of this story to protect those who may be involved.

Does anyone truly know why Marijuana remains illegal when it's been proven to be far less hazardous and non-addictive like that of alcohol? The reason is so simple you may believe I'm making it up. You have heard of Lobbyist I'm certain, well you can thank Marijuana Lobbyist for keep it illegal not politicians or religious activist. In 1981, a Kilo of Marijuana (2.2 lbs) cost approx. $3,400 depending on who you knew.

cont'd ...

In certain regions of the US where marijuana is grown, they are referred to as Pot Farmers. Pot Farmers generally require large acres of land in order to cultivate their product in densely wooded areas for sight protection. It is generally known that the North West has areas that provide not only the visual protection required but smaller populations due to lack of industry that attracts people.

So now you have an onslaught of people who want to cash in on this Cash Crop and move to these small populated areas, purchase large acres of land and stay as down low as possible while they prepare, grow, harvest and distribute their product. This is extremely hard work for anyone thinking about trying it. So you would think the local law enforcement would simply put a stop to it and they would if the people who inhabit these small towns and communities were to make objectionable noise about this service. Problem is, most of these specialized farmers are just like you & me. They have families, they buy necessities just like we do, they send their children to school and basically they spend their hard earned money in the communities they live.

So when that magical time of year called Harvest Time, finally arrives, everyone gets excited and I mean everyone because it truly means everyone makes money and a lot of it. Picture if you will, a guy who looks like an old Hippy that wears wrangler jeans, long pulled back hair, flannel shirt and water proof boots drive up in his rusted 1968 Ford Pickup that's taken a beating for a couple of years driving dirt roads hauling everything under the Sun and now this guy has $700,000 or more dollars in his pocket from a successful grow & harvest.

What do you think he does with this money? Well he goes into the Town that has grown to know him and he cleans it out. He buys a new Truck, he and his wife need to build a new addition to their house so he visits the local Lumber Yard and stacks up, when he goes to the local Food Supply Store, he buys for the Month not just for a week. Everybody in Town is sharing in the good fortune from this Harvest including the local Law enforcement. They know what's going on and they aren't about to bite the hand that feeds them either because he wants a new truck as well for his family and he wants a new addition to his house that his small salary can't afford him, so there's an arrangement and I'll leave it at that.

Point is, if our Federal Government were to visit these small towns and ask the people local merchants if they have problems with Pot Farmers that needs to be dealt with, you will hear a resounding, "No Way not this Town, you need to go further North I think. All of our inhabitants our Law bidding, heck nobody here even drinks beer".

These Pot Farmers aren't stupid people. They know if they want to continue this wholesome relationship they need to keep the cost of Marijuana high enough to make a difference and if Pot were to become legal, who would then make the money? Well Philip Morris of course and our Government Officials but not you and me. So the Government gets Pot Money payoffs in brown paper bags as long as they keep it illegal, the Communities profit, the Local Sheriffs profit, the Lumber Industry profits, the Auto Manufacturers profits, everybody profits and occasionally someone gets busted just to show the American Public that our Government is tough on crime. Yeah Right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intel

It's sad that politicians use the Constitution and their power to force personal beliefs (anti-abortion/ anti-premarital sex) down the throats of others.

---

Many people believe that the Constitution is the document that defines our rights. But in actuality, the Constitution was written in order to restrain the power of the federal government. Back during the revolution the founders were fighting against a tyrannical government and that was part of their motivation for writing the Constitution as it was. Amendments 9 & 10 make this point crystal clear.

Amendment 9: Rights Retained By The People: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10: Powers Retained By The States And The People: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What that all means, basically, is that the rights listed in the Constitution are not the limit of our rights but simply a list of guaranteed rights. Also, and probably more significantly, the power of the US federal government is specifically what is authorized by the Constitution and no more - the remaining powers, anything unspecified, are States rights or rights of the people.

Surprisingly, as in I was skeptical it would ever happen, some States are even beginning to wake up to the reality of how things have been going wrong. Back in March the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 92 to 3 in favor of "Claiming sovereignty under Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It was rather BIG news, but good luck finding it reported anywhere in the "mainstream" media - but it is real. You can see it at www.okhouse.gov

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

the majority of people have absolutely no clue who to vote for or why but relay upon those who have the biggest Microphone to tell them who they like and who they don't.

---

That is so true. And the worst part about it is that the media is not unbiased. They most certainly have an agenda, even to the point of government propaganda claimed to be happening in the US (which is supposed to be illegal).

Regarding the "pot" economy that you wrote about. I do agree in a way. The system does benefit in various ways by it being in place. I can see how the money issues benefit the towns as you describe it. But, if it was legal then the economic benefits would still exist, although more diluted over a national level rather than the local levels.

I believe the real reasons that the government doesn't completely destroy the drug trade is because government also depends on it. A significant percentage of law enforcement jobs would likely be lost if things like pot were legal. Think of all the guards, judges, agents, etc, etc who would no longer be needed. The people would save incredible amounts of money, but that doesn't seem to matter to the legislatures.

I believe that prison is for those who hurt other others and not for people who hurt themselves. If drugs were legal I personally would still not be even remotely interested, but who am I to tell someone else that they cannot as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

Regarding the "pot" economy that you wrote about. I do agree in a way. The system does benefit in various ways by it being in place. I can see how the money issues benefit the towns as you describe it. But, if it was legal then the economic benefits would still exist, although more diluted over a national level rather than the local levels.

I believe the real reasons that the government doesn't completely destroy the drug trade is because government also depends on it. A significant percentage of law enforcement jobs would likely be lost if things like pot were legal. Think of all the guards, judges, agents, etc, etc who would no longer be needed. The people would save incredible amounts of money, but that doesn't seem to matter to the legislatures.

I believe that prison is for those who hurt other others and not for people who hurt themselves. If drugs were legal I personally would still not be even remotely interested, but who am I to tell someone else that they cannot as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

---

Well my new Friend, I truly have spoken too much on this matter so I think I'll just leave opinions about it up to those who might read this. But to answer your claim that if Marijuana were legal, it would not impact the small communities much one way or the other. One must think in terms of 'Regulation'. In the regions that produce the largest quantities of cash crop, these very regions would generally fall in severe poverty if the Lumber Industry were their only source of real economic grow and employment venture.

The Federal Government would entertain legislation on which Tobacco Companies would grow and distribute marijuana under strict federal guidelines.
The Consumer would most likely be able to purchase pot in the manner they purchase cigarettes. The Government would profit from production & sales tax as they normally do on everything. However the money generated from legal pot sales would then have to be accounted for. Medical research would be granted billions for ongoing study on extended use and effects and each faction of our governmental departments would have their hands out for a piece of the spending pie to fund municipality promises.

I agree John that money would indeed be made but accountable money isn't the same as unaccountable money. Politicians take in an enormous amount of unaccountable money from entities that need changes in their favor.

I'm heterosexual, always have been and always will be. however I'm not homophobic. In my opinion, I've never been able to understand why our government both State & Federal can justify denying two like genders of being legally married. In a nutshell, if two men or two women love each other and want to marry, why is that my business? Why do politicians avoid at all cost any mention and/or conversation that refers to gay married during election time? Do we really think they give a crap? In previous primaries, gay marriage & illegal aliens were front & center by the media but in this recent primary, those topics were squashed. No mention from any media representatives. This was previously discussed and agreed to by all parties that those issues will not be asked during the campaign debates and they were not. And John, religion was big time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

But to answer your claim that if Marijuana were legal, it would not impact the small communities much one way or the other.

---

What I was thinking would happen is that people around the country who buy the stuff would begin to either grow it themselves or buy it from others who grow it. So they would be either saving money or spending the money more locally. The small communities in the NW that you referred to, I was thinking that they would lose simply because the money would be spread around more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

The Government would profit from production & sales tax as they normally do on everything.

---

Now that you point it out, and I think about it more, you're right. People who buy it wouldn't save money or spread the revenue around if it was legal. I never really gave significant thought to the topic. It does makes sense, though, that our government would squeeze every penny it could out of the process - like with most things. So in that sense, legalizing would benefit the government via revenues and wouldn't affect the small communities that are already involved in that stuff. Makes sense now as it would likely remain illegal for anyone to it themselves.

This topic doesn't interest me much other than it really being an example of the government always on the backs of the people. They should just leave people alone if they're not hurting anyone else.

Besides, it's interesting that alcohol prohibition required an amendment to make it illegal and another amendment to repeal the first. Where are the Constitutional amendments dealing with marijuana? I've read that somewhere around 50+ years ago the government could have basically cared less about it and that it was not illegal (I might be wrong on how many years ago that was).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

Why do politicians avoid at all cost any mention and/or conversation that refers to gay married during election time? Do we really think they give a crap? In previous primaries, gay marriage & illegal aliens were front & center by the media but in this recent primary, those topics were squashed. No mention from any media representatives.

---

My guess is that they would rather not show their true colors. Especially when they have positions which do not match at all the traditional values of the political parties that they represent. I suppose they also do whatever they can to make as many people as possible happy while at the same time not giving anyone any reasons not to like them. What is sorta comes down to is that they need to be disingenuous about what they really believe in, which I don't consider to be a good quality.

Hi Coach, I took a look at your site, and I found it to be very interesting, I'll be going back in the future.

Regards,
Paul

P.S. could you resend your e-mail, I deleted it by mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrgreatheart

Hi Coach, I took a look at your site, and I found it to be very interesting, I'll be going back in the future.

Regards,
Paul

P.S. could you resend your e-mail, I deleted it by mistake.

---

bluecollar@politicalwheel.org which btw, @politicalwheel.org FREE email accounts are available to members. Don't tell John but I'm trying to work on him to be a Co-Admin for that Site bcuz he is excellent in operating Forums and I need the help. I had three Mods and now I have none for legitimate reasons. I know they will come back when I get the Forum back current again. But for now, I'm dedicated to this Site and nothing is going to get in the way of that bcuz I love Tennis & Tennis People

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

Don't tell John but I'm trying to work on him to be a Co-Admin for that Site

---

;)

Politicians use it to capture those gullible people who are homosexual or religious. Liberal politicians mention homosexuality as a means of rallying the gay and homosexual communities who tend to belong to the affluent group in society--they have money. Republicans/Conservatives do it because they are trying to rally the homophobic religious groups to support them. I don't believe personal/sexual/religious issues have any place in politics, but sadly there are Americans who care whether someone is religious or homophobic.

Quote:

---

I'm heterosexual, always have been and always will be. however I'm not homophobic. In my opinion, I've never been able to understand why our government both State & Federal can justify denying two like genders of being legally married. In a nutshell, if two men or two women love each other and want to marry, why is that my business? Why do politicians avoid at all cost any mention and/or conversation that refers to gay married during election time?

---

If we (non-politicans) could succeed in changing one thing that would help our nation the most what would it be? I vote for a mandatory 8yr limit on persons serving in our congress and senate. They would receive 30 days of vacation per year, pay for their transportation and pay social security. They would be on workers comp and pay half of the cost of their insurance. Lobbyist would not be allowed to pay for or give gifts to any government official. Just this alone would do so much for so many.

I like your idea.

My idea would be to make politicians honor their oaths of office. Every single one of them makes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution - but the vast majority of them treat it like a doormat. The purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the powers of the federal government, but they resist being restrained at nearly every level.

The Enumerated Powers Act has been proposed by Congressman John Shadegg for quite a few years now, but it never passes. That legislation, if made law, would require Congress to cite the specific section of the Constitution which authorizes them when making any new laws.

I'd like to see that bill passed and have Congress create a commission to go back through all laws to cite their respective Constitutional authority. Any laws found to be in violation of the Constitution by not being able to cite a source of constitutional authority should immediately be sent into some sort of repeal process or modified in order to abide by constitutional law.

The way I figure, we're lucky enough to have this sort of Constitution in the US, the least our political representatives can do is obey it. Even if they disagree with any part of the Constitution, there is a process where it can be amended if need be.

I am an old Brit ! not into any form of politics, look where they have got us today !!!

That's very true, Harwin. I don't know much about UK politics but have learned earlier this year that in the UK the right to bear arms was taken away from the people. The government of Australia, as far as I know, did the same and I've read that the result for them was a significant increase in crime.

I read some article, or maybe it was a video, about a man living in the UK whose home was being broken into. He had a gun, so he defended himself and his home with it. If I'm not mistaken, one of the thieves was killed and the other was sentenced to 18 months or so in prison. The victim, the homeowner, was sentenced to something like 20 to 25 years because he protected himself. I was shocked when I learned about that. It's definitely a sad state of affairs when a government makes it illegal for victims to protect themselves and/or their property.

John ~

Not certain if protecting yourself is a crime. It's all about the Bernard Ghetz issue I believe. If I'm coming into your home at night unaware that someone is actually there. If I'm confronted by you and I choose to make a run for it and you shoot me, that's basically assault with intent to kill. If I should die, then that's manslaughter.

The whole point is, we have a right to protect our bodies & property but we don't have a right to take the law into our own hands. If it's apparent that someone is trying to get away, then we must give that person every opportunity to do so. If we shoot them in the back, while they are going out the door, the Court views that as an obvious decision to enact self-appointed justice.

If however the perp is shooting at you within your home and you fire back and kill them or render them unable to respond, you are within your right at that time. No law in the World is going to rule against you defending yourself. But when someone is running away, it is no longer protecting yourself.

It's a very fine line I know and the Law can be interpreted in many ways but at the end of the day, it always seems to be in favor of the perpetrator. It appears that the Law defines defense as allowing someone to shoot at you first before you can respond. Well sometimes, it only takes one shot and you're done.

If someone enters my home at night and presents a threat to me and my family, I will do everything possible to end that situation and deal with the Court later. I'm not advocating violence but I'm no Lawyer either, so I'm not about to wait and figure out what is allowed and what isn't.

I don't believe we are talking about the same case. I searched on Google for 30 minutes or so but cannot find the one I was referring to. It definitely was not a case of a thief being shot in the back or the victim taking the law into his own hands. The victim was imprisoned because of defending himself with a gun. It really was a travesty of justice. I suppose they do things a bit differently across the pond with regards to those issues. I also searched for Bernard Ghetz, but could not find any related info on that person, either. (I think maybe Google is broken tonight. This is the first time in years that I couldn't find what I'm searching for within minutes there.)

Anyhow, I would never suggest or condone shooting someone in the back who is trying to flee. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be akin to revenge. However, I do fully believe in each person's right to defend themselves. I believe that is a natural right that exists without saying. In addition, people really have very little choice regarding self defense. If there are no alternatives and you must protect yourself, then you must do what you've gotta do.

More tennis courts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

I also searched for Bernard Ghetz, but could not find any related info on that person, either. (I think maybe Google is broken tonight. This is the first time in years that I couldn't find what I'm searching for within minutes there.)

---

That's probably because I didn't spell his name correctly. Bernhard Goetz

U.K. Government Policy on Household Self-Defense

This was first brought to our attention by a Feb. 1, '05 news release from Bloomberg News. The Crown Prosecution Service in the U.K has issued a leaflet defining the self-defense rights of householders. In brief

* "Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime."
* "If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully."
* You may pursue, hit, or tackle a fleeing perpetrator to recover your stolen property and make a citizen's arrest

Still one should try to call the police first, only use reasonable force, and not set traps. Read the complete statement on the U.K. government website. Download the Crown's leaflet

All of this sounds very brave and pro-people until you learn that the Labour government has outlawed guns, knives, pepper spray, batons, and other means of effective self-defense by the average person against criminals. Labour has aided and abetted criminals by making victums safe for them, causing a boom in violent crime.

This was taken from the information I found here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

That's probably because I didn't spell his name correctly. Bernhard Goetz

---

I vaguely remember hearing something about that sort of incident, maybe that exact one, years ago. That was at a time, though, when I wasn't really paying attention to this sort of news.

I read through that wikipedia article and that must have been quite a media/political firestorm in NYC at the time.

The Goetz case I suppose is somewhat similar to the UK case I mentioned. The one in the UK, I believe it was either Wales or England, but I don't recall which. Anyhow, the guy lived by himself in the far outskirts of town - basically in a secluded / wooded area. Far enough away from even neighbors that nobody would have been able to hear him call for help. It was at nighttime when the thieves broke into his home. I do not recall the details of exactly what whet on inside, but 1 thief was killed, the other was injured & sentenced to approx 18 months and the homeowner/victim was sentenced to 20-25 years or so. I recall that his sentence was due to him defending himself with a gun, but maybe it wasn't so much about the defense and mostly that he owned and used a gun. I read in the wiki article that Goetz was also sentenced only in regards to having an unlicensed/illegal gun or something like that, but not for the actual use of the gun in self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

U.K. Government Policy on Household Self-Defense

---

Thanks for posting that. I didn't know the bans in the UK extended to things such as pepper spray & batons. I find some of those laws to be so odd. People should have an undeniable right to defend themselves in whatever way is necessary. By necessary I also mean at a reasonable level as well.

I could understand those laws existing in order to specify the illegality of using various weapons while committing a crime, but not when someone is defending themselves and especially if the person believes their life is at risk.

Did anyone watch the McCain / Obama debate tonight?

I only caught a few minutes of it while they were talking about the Russia/Georgia conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

Did anyone watch the McCain / Obama debate tonight?

I only caught a few minutes of it while they were talking about the Russia/Georgia conflict.

---

Sorry but I'm not interested in listening to pandering. In my opinion, politicians will say whatever they need to say in order to accomplish one goal only and that's get elected.

If McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer, then the republicans are in a World of hurt and all I've ever heard from Obama is what his speech writers tell him to say which is evident to how he stutters & stumbles in live interviews.

There were so many inconsistencies from Obama that I could no longer feel he was ready for the highest office in the land. Bottomline for me is, should Obama become president, who he gets around him are going to be who is actually controlling the country for these next four years.

This time around, I actually thought Mrs Clinton would have been the better choice for America but it's been a very long time since we got it right in electing a President. Promises are easy to throw around and God Knows we've heard tons of them but what these presidential hopefuls don't tell you is it's all about what Congress decides and who will have the ear of Congress.

Should the Repubs take control over the House & Senate, then McCain will have a better shot of making things happen and vice versa. I lost respect for Obama during the Rev. Wright controversy given he basically lied about what he knew about Wright and he only denounce him when it became clear he would suffer a loss to Hillary if he defended him. For him to say, I attend his Church and he's the God father of my children and has come to my home for dinner several times and I never knew of his ideology, just doesn't cut it.

McCain, although did good in picking a female running mate did horrible in picking that female running mate. She's off her rocker. If McCain were much younger, then it really wouldn't matter but this guy is old and she could wind up being the President and God help us if that should happen.

I am a Brit, we have a gracious lady "The Queen" who serves this Country of ours well. As for the politicians, well they just "Feather their own nests! I won't waist any time on them !!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harwin

I am a Brit, we have a gracious lady "The Queen" who serves this Country of ours well. As for the politicians, well they just "Feather their own nests! I won't waist any time on them !!!

---

Harwin -

I always wanted to know how is power divided or shared between the Queen and the Prime Minister?

On another note, I felt the same amount of sadness for Princess Diana's death as I did when John Kennedy was killed. To this day, that tragedy continues to bother me about society and what we allow in the name of profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

Sorry but I'm not interested in listening to pandering.

---

Same here. The few minutes I watched was actually by accident. ;) We were watching a recorded show on Tivo and when that finished the live channel had the debate on.

I don't like either of them. If it was a 3 person race with Hillary in it, she would be my preference - even though I didn't support Hillary during the primaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

If McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer, then the republicans are in a World of hurt

---

I agree. McCain definitely is not the best the GOP could offer. Not by a long shot.

I believe the best Republican candidate was Ron Paul. Learning about Dr. Paul and his political platform is probably the best thing I ever did, in regards to politics. I can thank whoever it was that put up the hundreds of signs I saw between the Tampa Airport and St. Petersburg back in December 2007. Even a few months after he dropped out of the race I still see more signs and bumper stickers for him wherever I go - more than for McCain & Obama (and probably all the others) combined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach

and all I've ever heard from Obama is what his speech writers tell him to say which is evident to how he stutters & stumbles in live interviews.

---

I've also noticed that Obama doesn't seem quite right without his teleprompter. I stumbled upon a short video at YouTube a while back where Obama's teleprompter goes out while he's speaking in front of an audience (some sort of town hall type event) and he just about completely loses it. McCain seems to speak better when he isn't using a teleprompter and Obama does way better with one. My guess is that McCain is better at memorizing stuff and Obama is better at reading out loud.



In my opinion, neither of them speak much about things that they truly understand or believe in. When people are speaking about topics in which they have a great deal of knowledge and passion for, they never need to read their answers or look back at their notes before answering a question. A perfect example of this is probably you with all your knowledge about tennis. I bet just as you are reading this, without any preparation or notes, you could deliver a great presentation or debate about the sport without any problem. It's because you really know the stuff.

McCain & Obama... bleh...

You mention Ron Paul and I have as well recognized under-grade Candidates that have terrific ideas on how to move this Country forward. The argument about abolishing the two party system is so vitally important for Americans yet running for President has become huge business. No third Party Candidate can even come close to raising the amounts of money required to give themselves a shot.

Money is what elects Presidents. Personality and Charisma are who we vote for. Ideas take a back seat because Americans essentially feel, it doesn't matter who is sitting in the Oval Office these days, it's who he has around him that's making the decisions and of course our checks & balances is Congress.

Well America, I bear witness to two disasters where that theory didn't work out so well for us. Viet Nam, which I was involved in and now Iraq, that was shoved down our throats because Americans are not about to take a blow from anyone like that and not strike back. Problem is, we didn't strike the right people. Saddam was a horrible man and deserved being removed from power but that was for another day. And to think capturing or killing Osama Ben Laden, will dent or damper terrorism is nothing less than a joke at this point. There are so many fractured groups that he doesn't even have control over that we must deal with. Point is, when he's gone, they will still be there.

In the name of Allah, is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Allah (GOD) doesn't want death, destruction or terrorism to prevail. God is all about Peace, Love and Community amongst Mankind. Anything other than that is self-indulgence.