[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As far as the "let it all burn" sentiment goes, do you really want to see 300 million Americans harmed? No man is an island, and we can't all emigrate to Switzerland or Sweden, so I'm not prepared to sit back and laugh at the damage a Barack Obama presidency would do not only to us domestically but to the world as well.

There comes a point when the rising tide of stupid is too hard to combat and energies are best employed look after one's own. I believe the western world is currently at such a point.

You know the score as to how things work. You know why we're being hit by the so called "credit crunch". You can either try to convince a bunch of Family Guy* viewers that there's a problem (and end up feeling like Cassandra), or you can spend that time and energy insulating yourself and your family against the approaching poostorm.

(* It's my opinion that in order to enjoy Family Guy, one's brain must be connected slightly incorrectly - the type of bad wiring which has people joining the Dems)

[Big Mac]

I agree with you to significant extent (and we definitely agree on FG), and I have counseled that those with money convert to gold if Obama wins. I'm not ready to give up on America yet, though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

It's remarkable how the experience factor really hasn't played in McCain's favor. McCain shot himself in the foot by choosing Palin. But now in the debates, the argument seems ridiculous, since Obama can answer foreign policy questions at least as well as McCain, while McCain is stuck dodging Iraq.

This was my take-away also.

McCain hasn't been able to find an "experience" wedge attack that will stick. He keeps bringing up that Obama would get Bin Laden in Pakistan if he could, but I think every American agrees with Obama on this and eventually McCain admits that he also agrees. So what is their difference on this issue? I have no idea.

Worse, Obama made McCain look like an absolute ass by forcing McCain against the ropes of "talk softly, but carry a big stick". Obama easily countered with "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran" and McCain was then forced out of the ring with having to relent; "I'm embarrassed this came up." or something to that effect. He should be. Hardly a presidential way to address the complexities of global aggression.

The second wedge that McCain pushed a lot in the first debate, and a bit more in this one, was that Obama said he would meet with foreign leaders even of our enemies. But Obama had a planned rebuttal: look what Bush's policies on Iran and N. Korea have given us. By pushing this, McCain was forced to identify himself with Bush's failures, so Obama managed to turn it around.

Worse IMO is the fact that McCain didn't even try to address Iraq. Whether you agree with them or not, there were a wealth of reasons to be in Iraq. He didn't even try. You can say this would've been a huge political blunder due to the public's distaste for how this action has been conducted, but avoiding it entirely does more net-negatives for his campaign. Unbelievable.

McCain's only possible route to victory is to focus on the economy. If he came up with a dramatic new proposal, then that could change things.

Worse; at a time when people are still reeling with the blow of $700 billion in bailout loot to cigar-chomping fat cats, he does come up with a dramatic new proposal. As if owning bad Wall St. paper wasn't enough, he's going to put the taxpayers on the hook for a massive nationalization of bad Main St. paper now too. Incredible.

But his economic advisors lack credibility ("Dow 36,000" indeed) and he himself brings nothing to the table except eight houses, 13 cars and proposals to cut taxes on the millionaires while increasing taxes on everyone who has employer-sponsored health care. His campaign has indicated that it wants to ignore the economy and focus on negative attacks, but I think that is a huge mistake. The attacks aren't sticking, and McCain just looks more and more out of touch.

From suspending his campaign and contributing little to the reason he did, failing to adequately address any of the indictments lodged against him, allowing himself to be pinned against the ropes of failed logic time and again, and in proposing, completely unannounced; a huge increase in the government's role in home ownership while trying to indict Obama for "government solutions"... his campaign has been the template of failure. A perfect example of how not to run for President.

As it stands today, you'd be better served writing in Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble or...


Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Think I'm kidding?

[mduell]

Now 10:1 odds... it's over. Democrats are going to run their agenda through congress and the White House freely.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I agree with you to significant extent (and we definitely agree on FG), and I have counseled that those with money convert to gold if Obama wins. I'm not ready to give up on America yet, though.

Isn't this sort of doom-and-gloom mindset something you normally attribute to alarmist Liberals?

This country will be fine no matter who is elected, thinking otherwise is ridiculous.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Isn't this sort of doom-and-gloom mindset something you normally attribute to alarmist Liberals?

This country will be fine no matter who is elected, thinking otherwise is ridiculous.

That was my point in the third (my first) post in this thread. However, I'm not so sure the country will be "fine" given the looming financial issues ... but, I agree it won't be substantially more or less "fine" if one or the other of these two candidates is elected.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

That was my point in the third (my first) post in this thread. However, I'm not so sure the country will be "fine" given the looming financial issues ... but, I agree it won't be substantially more or less "fine" if one or the other of these two candidates is elected.

Exactly my point, but you worded it better

I don't get how Conservatives can call Al Gore an alarmist for his views yet in the same breath scream that our country is going to crash and burn if a Democrat gets in office...actually I do get it, it's blind political party slander, and it's as transparent as a clear October day.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

foreign nations (including our allies) may give us another try after writing us off as completely unilateral a$$holes after 9/11.

You should get your "history" straight. The world united after 9/11. I don't know how many times I posted the French and German efforts to help the U.S. against terrorism (changed legislation and all). It seems all that went down in the "Iwaq has WMDs & Frenchy's is an enemy!!!!!" hysteria of the Iraq war, which indeed alienated the U.S. from many of its loyal partners and allies.

PB.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

You should get your "history" straight. The world united after 9/11. I don't know how many times I posted the French and German efforts to help the U.S. against terrorism (changed legislation and all). It seems all that went down in the "Iwaq has WMDs & Frenchy's is an enemy!!!!!" hysteria of the Iraq war, which indeed alienated the U.S. from many of its loyal partners and allies.

PB.

I think we are just having a semantic disagreement here. When I say "after 9/11", I didn't mean to imply immediately after 9/11. Immediately after, yes, we had more support than we've probably ever had. It was the unilateral positions we took staring with the Iraq War that got us on the poop list of many of our allies. It was the whole "Bring it on!", "Freedom Fries", screw-the-UN nonsense that we started that pissed away that good will.