|
|
Post by Jaga on Aug 6, 2008 11:50:41 GMT -7
I give up. Some of you are totally susceptible to the character assasination propaganda, so I ask - what the presidential elections should be about? SHOULD WE NOT TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPEN DURING 8 YEARS OF BUSH? Or should we talk how bad Obama will be because he is a celebrity according to GOP. What about other OP celebrities who are adored by GOP like Reagan and Schwarzenegger? Why they are good and Obama will b bad?  |
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Aug 6, 2008 12:05:30 GMT -7
Jaga,
You are right it should be about what they will do if elected. Unfortunately, we have had promises from many politicians and they renig on what they say they will do if elected. But we should at least have some understanding of what they are for prior to election time.
Eight years of Bush is history and we can learn from it and not change it.
Reagan was the Governor of CA for lots of years so had Experience on many fronts. CA is the largest most complicated state in the Union. Schwarzenegger was cast into the job. Had no experience other then what rubbed off of him from the Kennedys.
But that being said we need to see the platforms for each candidate what he intends to do and what the impact on the US is.
And hold their feet to the fire to get it done, knowing full well it will not happen.
I voted for Carter and regretted it.
There is something to be said for walk softly and carry a big stick.
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Aug 6, 2008 21:04:06 GMT -7
;D ;D Sorry Jaga. I had to put "Something Else" down. O'bimbo keeps saying "change we can believe in"....duh....everything changes; Seconds, minutes hours, days, weeks, months and years change. The seasons change and storms change the weather. Those are changes that occur and changes I can believe in. That Democrat is just another empty person and suit, with nothing new and no idea of how to do it.   P.S. He has no character to assasinate. |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Aug 6, 2008 21:45:46 GMT -7
;D ;D Sorry Jaga. I had to put "Something Else" down. O'bimbo keeps saying "change .... That Democrat is just another empty person and suit, with nothing new and no idea of how to do it. P.S. He has no character to assasinate. Bob, just vote for old Bush ideas if you do not want a change. After the next 8 years of Bush we will have more wars, double deficit, value of dollar will be equal to zloty (now is stil 1 USD= 2 zloty). The gas prices will be only 8 dollars per gallon. we all will be equally poor! |
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Aug 7, 2008 6:36:12 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Aug 7, 2008 17:27:59 GMT -7
Newsweek reports on how impressive Paris's energy program is: Don’t Laugh. Paris Is Right. What Ms. Hilton could teach Messrs. McCain and Obama about our energy crisis. Howard Fineman Newsweek Web Exclusive Updated: 3:27 PM ET Aug 7, 2008 Even if you know this statistic it's worth repeating: In the mid 1970s, the last time we were in a dither about energy, we were getting a third of our petroleum from abroad. Now, decades later, we buy more than two thirds of it from overseas. As T. Boone Pickens says, it's the largest transfer of wealth in history, with the possible exception of the armadas of gold and silver the Spanish took home from the New World centuries ago. The new "oil shock"—not an Arab oil embargo this time, but a scary run-up in the price of crude—has dragged us back to an old storyline and a confrontation with the monsters we failed to destroy decades ago. We're still using up our resources too fast, damaging the environment unnecessarily and becoming too dependent on others for our survival. This time, the challenges are even more difficult to deal with. China and India are growing too fast; oil producers are choking on dollars whose value they distrust; Russia and Venezuela (and some Muslim countries) are antagonistic, turbo-charged petroligarchies. So where should we turn for inspiration and leadership? To Paris Hilton, of course! I mention her not only because I am betting she looks better in a one-piece bathing suit than John McCain or even Barack Obama. No, we need Paris because her cheerful and sensible approach to the energy problem—encapsulated in her own poolside “ad"—is a lesson in leadership to the two "real" presidential candidates. Paris's message: don't stress, don't dis each other's ideas, let's just try everything! It doesn't get any smarter than that. McCain and Obama, by contrast, are engaged in a phony war that refuses to accept the Hiltonian point: we need every tactic in this new energy war. We need all the production, conservation and research strategies we can imagine. Nothing should be belittled, or dismissed; everything should be attempted. We can't afford to think otherwise. At the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival recently, I was struck by the fact that the captains of industry from Silicon Valley and the academic and journalistic muckety-mucks agreed on only one thing: we need to tackle the energy challenge with the urgency and imagination of the Manhattan Project and the Marshall Plan combined. Men and women who are paid to see over the horizon, and who have a good track record of doing so, said privately that we are a decade from ruin at best. So what are McCain and Obama doing? Arguing about tire gauges and offshore drilling! It didn't have to come to this. Perhaps because of his national-security and Navy background, McCain was the first of the two candidates to see the urgency of the issue. The other, less generous explanation, is that McCain needed to tap into the old Bush crowd at the Houston Petroleum Club, and that the only way to overcome their skepticism of him was for him to abandon his semi-green stance on things and go pedal-to-the-metal on the need for more production. And it is true that McCain has racked up lots of donations. For whatever reason, he was the first of the two candidates to capture the urgency that the American people feel. His Lexington Project was unveiled early this summer at a time when Obama, who had just wrapped up the Democratic nomination, wasn't paying much attention. And to McCain's credit, his plan does have an all-hands-on-deck quality to it, stressing production, to be sure, but also creative tax and investment notions for pushing the technology and conservation envelope. But in recent days, McCain has gotten sidetracked by some of his own (and his advisers) juvenile rhetoric, as they attempt to portray Obama as an unmanly and out-of-touch Ivy League fop. McCain has wasted valuable time ridiculing Obama for his sensible reminder that individual self-help acts on conservation—like making sure your automobile tires are properly inflated—can add up to tremendous energy savings. Eventually, McCain was forced to concede that everyone from the American Automobile Association to the Department of Energy has been saying exactly the same thing about tires. In fact, I'm sure even the guys at NASCAR check the pressure on the tires of their civilian cars, not to mention the ones they drive around the track. As for Obama, his own New Energy for America Plan, released last week, bears similarities to McCain's in terms of a cap on carbon emissions and trading of emission rights; various tax incentives and awards to push the technology of alternative fuels, especially for cars. He, too, is in favor of a "smart grid" to wheel power more efficiently as we increase of reliance on electricity to power all kinds of vehicles. But Obama can't let go of the chance to portray McCain as a mindless, rapacious driller and digger who eats uranium for breakfast and quaffs kerosene with his coterie of Big Oil friends. Obama's plan dwells on problems associated with nuclear power, and none of its benefits (such as the complete absence of carbon emissions). In his original proposal, Obama flatly opposed opening up new offshore areas to oil exploration, too. As rapacious as McCain is, however, Obama has now joined him—at least part way—in agreeing that some drilling in newly permitted offshore spots may in fact be a good idea. Obama knows the truth. New ocean prospecting won't produce immediate results, but it can at the least be an expression of American determination—and that can have an effect in and of itself. Just ask Paris. URL: www.newsweek.com/id/151256 |
|
|
|
Post by rdywenur on Aug 7, 2008 17:59:13 GMT -7
I thought Paris's comeback rebuttal ad was sweet. I don't understand the "celebrity" when referring to Obama. Reagan and Swartzenegger are/were celebrities cause they were actors first. Obama is a wanna be. Wanna be celebrity and a wanna be a president. It still doesn't cut the mustard.
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Aug 7, 2008 20:00:40 GMT -7
;D ;D ;D O.K., O.K. Who has that .1% vote? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Aug 8, 2008 7:58:54 GMT -7
Ok this not current however, I did not know this.
The EIGHT MISSING Presidents
Think back to your history books - The United States Declared its
independence in 1776, yet Washington did not take office until April 30,
1789. So who was running the country during these initial years of this
young country? It was the first eight U. S. Presidents.
In fact, the first President of the United States was one John Hanson.
I can hear you now - John who? John Hanson, the first President of
the United States. Don't go checking the encyclopedia for this guy's
name - he is one of those great men that are lost to history. If you're
extremely lucky, you may actually find a brief mention of his name.
The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the
adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was
actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by
Congress until November 15, 1777. Maryland refused to sign this
document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands
(Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power
in the new government from such large amounts of land). Once the
signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country.
John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included
George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates
refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the revolution
and an extremely influential member of Congress.
As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one
had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions
in office would set precedent for all future Presidents.
He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately,
the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long
war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers
threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the
throne as a monarch.
All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson as the
only guy left running the government. He somehow managed to calm the
troops down and hold the country together. If he had failed, the
government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would
have been bowing to King Washington.
Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as
well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite the feat,
considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in
the Unite d States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established
the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since
been required to use on all official documents. President Hanson also
established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War,
and the first Foreign Affairs Department.
Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was
to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today. The Articles of
Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one year term during
any three year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in
such little time.
Seven other presidents were elected after him -
1. Elias Boudinot (1782-83),
2. Thomas Mifflin (1783-84),
3. Richard Henry Lee (1784-85),
4. John Hancock (1785-86),
5. Nathan Gorman (1786-87),
6. Arthur St. Clair (1787-88), and
7. Cyrus Griffin (1788-89) -
.....all prior to Washington taking office.
So what happened?
Why don't we hear about the first eight presidents? It's quite simple --
The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states had
too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed
to be written - something we know as the Constitution.
And that leads us to the end of our story. George Washington was definitely
not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of
the United States under the Constitution we follow today. And the first eight
Presidents are forgotten in history.
YOU HAVE TO BE A LOVER OF HISTORY TO APPRECIATE THIS!!
(It took 8 years to establish a successful government. You might just
remember this when you hear that so little progress has been made
during these last 3 years in establishing a Government in Iraq.)
There you are, another lesson in U.S. History and you may have learned
something new today.
|
|
Marek
Freshman Pole
Posts: 15
|
Post by Marek on Aug 12, 2008 20:02:12 GMT -7
Hi,
Let me start with something humble. I have seen here on the forum somewhere a statement that if you are not an American you should bugger off and don't make any statements on the upcoming US election. I would like to think that this forum is open to all and unlike a communist system which we all have plenty of criticism for, we are free here to express our thoughts on any topic, regardless of our nationality or the passport we are holding at the moment. And especially about a topic, which has global implications for generations to come.
I would like to start by saying that it is somewhat embarrassing to me to see the Senator Obama called O'bimbo here on the Forum, and especially when the comment is made by one of the moderators. It is blatantly racist and makes me feel ashamed of my Polish roots.
I also feel somewhat exasperated when I read comments which suggest jokingly or otherwise that voting for someone like Paris would send a message to... I don't know, the aliens in the fourth dimension. Because to the rest of us living in this world this can only mean that you are making a mockery of a political system which many people have fought and died for, even as recently as the Second World War, when so many Poles and Americans died fighting Fascism. Democracy despite its many flaws is the best system we have, it is unfortunate however, that despite the sacrifices of the generations before us, we pay more attention to pop idols than to legislative bills.
I can imagine that it must be a bit embarrassing at this time in history to be a Republican supporter, after the current administration has ruined the country, but it is perhaps not embarrassing enough.
Did you know that aside from starting a war in Iraq - a country which had nothing to do with 9/11, President Bush vetoed twice a bill to expand a national health care program for children of parents who can not afford private insurance. That is just bellow any man, and I really don't care what kind of stripes and stars you are wearing. The poor in this country are being asked to pull themselves up by their boot straps and be suspicious of government handouts, while the captains of industry successfully lobby and accept multibillion dollars subsidies with promises of creating jobs which they never do. What is wrong with this picture?
Now, before you decide again to call Senator Obama a derogatory name or opt out for Paris in her bikini, I suggest you read from the beginning to the end the political platform available on your candidate of choice website. I know that reading 340 pages document may be a daunting task, but I think we owe this to the people who fought and died for democracy, as well as to the people around the world who have to endure dictatorships and only wish they could vote for the candidate of their choice.
Marek
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Aug 20, 2008 19:13:54 GMT -7
Hi, Let me start with something humble. I have seen here on the forum somewhere a statement that if you are not an American you should bugger off and don't make any statements on the upcoming US election. I would like to think that this forum is open to all and unlike a communist system which we all have plenty of criticism for, we are free here to express our thoughts on any topic, regardless of our nationality or the passport we are holding at the moment. And especially about a topic, which has global implications for generations to come. Hi Marek, I never had membership in a political party, but it always impressed me how the Right Wing in the US shared some strong perspectives with the Commies. As in calling for restrictions on who can speak or what can be said. That carries over to telling non-Americans to keep quiet and to tell Americans who do not agree with right wing opinions to keep quiet as well. Maybe it is no coincidence that the new color for the Republican Party is Red, much as the Communists were Red. Or maybe it stands for Red ink of deficit spending and mortgaging the future. Certainly it does not represent conservative values! So please, say what you wish. Some of us will hear you. Hi, I would like to start by saying that it is somewhat embarrassing to me to see the Senator Obama called O'bimbo here on the Forum, and especially when the comment is made by one of the moderators. It is blatantly racist and makes me feel ashamed of my Polish roots. I agree, but the O'Bimbo is just in the American tradition of tasteless name calling and distractions from saying anything important. Sadly, if you read much from America, you must get used to these crudities. Some people have no national pride. I suspect a part of it is one way of expressing a hidden, unspoken racial prejudice. I also feel somewhat exasperated when I read comments which suggest jokingly or otherwise that voting for someone like Paris would send a message to... I don't know, Now, before you decide again to call Senator Obama a derogatory name or opt out for Paris in her bikini, I suggest you read from the beginning to the end the political platform available on your candidate of choice website. Marek I an one who proposed Paris is a refreshing candidate, if only in fun or spoof of the two "serious" parties. Her quickly expressed energy policy DOES make more sense than the program either party has yet proposed. I am quite surprised that Paris, as an Air Head (nothing in the head except air) can put together more sensible and grammatical sentences than the sitting president of the USA (or Commander in Chief as neo-cons like to refer to him). No, I have not read the platform of either party. I am not sure there is a difference between the parties any more, this seems to be Corporate America we live in. Strangely, corporations did not exist when the USA was founded, but they run the country now. So at the very least, I extend one invitation to continue to post your ideas, ideas about Poland as well as ideas about the US of A. Kai the non-Pole |
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Aug 20, 2008 19:52:22 GMT -7
I found a very interesting article which compares a world seen by Obama (full of nuanses and shades) as compared to the world of McCain which is clear and simple. The author writes that she would like to live in the world of McCain but... the world we live in is probably not that simple. here is more: Worlds Apart www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702080.htmlWhen I was little, I had a recurrent dream that there was a terrible earthquake. My father, his body a horse with wings, swooped down from the sky, kneeled so I could jump on his back and flew away just as the earth cracked open beneath me. It was my most comforting dream. I want to live in that world again. I want to live in John McCain's world. My father was a military man. My parents were friends of McCain's parents and lived in the same apartment building. My father's closest friend was Barry Goldwater, McCain's mentor. Those were the days when men were men, when the differences between good and evil were clear, when they knew where they stood on every issue, when life was less complicated, when there was an air of insouciance, no matter how difficult the issues. ... |
|
nathanael
Cosmopolitan
: “Die Wahrheit macht frei und ist das Fundament der Einheit (John Paul II)
Posts: 636
|
Post by nathanael on Aug 23, 2008 12:15:19 GMT -7
The elections, all elections in which human beings participate, should be for good, and against evil! I do not agree that differences between good and evil have shifted. That is not sustainable. God is still the same God! What had shifted are the morals of people deceived by skillful societal architects! As an example, one evil that was evil since the beginning of the world, till now, is the choice to destroy an unborn human being! My hope is that both candidates keep this in mind, and voters keep this in mind, as well. Here I am encouraged by the choice of Sen. Biden, with whom I have been in contact regarding Iraq. He and I share many points of convergence in our thinking. All this Senator has to do, to be my candidate, is to make clear that abortion is evil, as it has been evil since man was created by the God of Life!
|
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Aug 23, 2008 13:09:04 GMT -7
The elections, all elections in which human beings participate, should be for good, and against evil! I do not agree that differences between good and evil have shifted. That is not sustainable. God is still the same God! By what name shall we call Him? Are there different Gods, or just different religions, as you seem to imply in your posting about the Chinese oppressing your religion? ...one evil that was evil since the beginning of the world, till now, is the choice to destroy an unborn human being! .... All this Senator has to do, to be my candidate, is to make clear that abortion is evil, as it has been evil since man was created by the God of Life! Are you willing to expand this morality and sanctity of life to support a candidate who generally opposes war and killing of already-born humans, or does your morality not go past the unborn? Where does that place your feelings about war in general or war as a political tool, with all of the attendant killing of people, both soldiers and innocent civilians ("collateral damage" is a nice de-humanizing term making careless human death more palatable) Just curious where you stand, and how narrow a policy you insist upon from our politicians. Kai |
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Aug 23, 2008 13:13:22 GMT -7
For anyone looking at a long, definitive article on where the politicians stand on the economy, try the NY Times and "How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy", an 8 part article that covers quite a bit of ground in understandable English. tinyurl.com/5dzzbdIf that link does not work, go to www.nytimes.com and look for "How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy". Kai PS It seems Obama has the more conservative and well defined economic program. But then, read the article and decide for yourselves! |
|
