Originally Posted by MontyB

Which is why nothing changes and politicians devolve into corporate yes men.
Initially people were elected because they were known in a region for doing good now you are given a politician to vote for by which ever party you now follow blindly whose only difference from the other guy is party logo or tie colour.

(This is not just a US thing this is a world wide thing, your choice is politician clone 1 or 2 from the presidential cloning facility on Wall Street just as mine is prime minister clone 1 or 2).

I really do not like Obama but the one thing I will give him is that he managed to convince people that he could make a difference which meant at some point he understood that people want a change in the way politics works sadly he has not shown any sign of delivering on his promises but by comparison it seems to me that Romney is doing the mandatory I oppose all Obama stands for (as required by a challenger) which means your choice is a guy that knows change is needed but cant deliver or someone that actively opposes change out of preference to a system that has clearly failed.

At some point in the past there may not have been huge gaps between the Partys. Late 1800s saw a debate over whether our money should be based on gold coinage or silver coinage, with the pro-inflation Greenback Party as a fringe Party. Think some of you are a bit too synical on things today, @ least to some extent. Romney does seem to be the Candidate pushed by Establishment Republicans & the Media vs someone like Herman Cain that could have really shaken things up in the Party. Romney is a sucsessfull businessman, leader of a large project in trouble (Olympics) & has governing/administrative expierience. Obama promised "Change" w/o saying anything about what they "Changes" would be, he just let people assume it would be for the better. Obama grew up with Marxist parents & in an anti-Western enviroment, not the typical exposure of growing up in the United States. Lots of the pro-Marxist comments in his books including saying that the Private Sector was the "Enemy Camp". You have Saul Alinsky, Ayers the Terrorist, Jeremiah Wright, typical of his pals. Basicly we have a Capitalist who probably has ideas on how to get the free-market back on its feet vs an anti-Capitalist who has shown little comprehension of how things work in the real world

Originally Posted by George

At some point in the past there may not have been huge gaps between the Partys. Late 1800s saw a debate over whether our money should be based on gold coinage or silver coinage, with the pro-inflation Greenback Party as a fringe Party. Think some of you are a bit too synical on things today, @ least to some extent. Romney does seem to be the Candidate pushed by Establishment Republicans & the Media vs someone like Herman Cain that could have really shaken things up in the Party. Romney is a sucsessfull businessman, leader of a large project in trouble (Olympics) & has governing/administrative expierience. Obama promised "Change" w/o saying anything about what they "Changes" would be, he just let people assume it would be for the better. Obama grew up with Marxist parents & in an anti-Western enviroment, not the typical exposure of growing up in the United States. Lots of the pro-Marxist comments in his books including saying that the Private Sector was the "Enemy Camp". You have Saul Alinsky, Ayers the Terrorist, Jeremiah Wright, typical of his pals. Basicly we have a Capitalist who probably has ideas on how to get the free-market back on its feet vs an anti-Capitalist who has shown little comprehension of how things work in the real world

Personally I think you are not cynical enough, the current dire situation of your economy is directly due to unrestricted capitalism and you want to elect a guy that thinks that is the way to go.

We live in a world where the middle class is taking an absolute pounding and yet we continue to elect millionaires and billionaires who tell us they understand the problems of the poor and middle class and that the answer is to make the rich richer.

(http://www.startribune.com/business/...5.html?refer=y)

The reality is that politics is now so far divorced from the realities of the average citizen that I doubt our leaders could find their own arses with both hands and a flashlight let alone rectify issues facing a nations populace.

I think it is time people gave up on pushing the ideologies of Capitalism and Communism as both have failed and started focusing on the people that have elected them.

Originally Posted by MontyB

the current dire situation of your economy is directly due to unrestricted capitalism.
I think it is time people gave up on pushing the ideologies of Capitalism and Communism as both have failed and started focusing on the people that have elected them.

Capitolism here is far from unrestricted. The meltdown was caused by Dems forcing banks to lower loan requirements, resulting in huge numbers of people buying houses that had no ability to pay for them. The Banks found it to be very profitable & they knew that the Govt would cover any loses from wreckless investments. Warnings from John McCain in '05 went unheeded, except for Barney Frank Dem.-Mass) calling him a Racist because the head of (Fanny or Freddy) was black. Franks Commitee was supposed to be overseeing the Banking Industry & he utterly failed to do so, then blamed the Republicans for the meltdown. Communism is a failure yet Libs think they are smart enough to move us closer to it w/o making the same screw up overseas Libs made. Modified Capitolism has produced way more wealth than any other system for the majority of citizens.

So your contention is that its all the other guys fault mean while the other guy is saying it is all your fault and because it is politically wrong for either of you to actually look at it with an open mind nothing ever gets fixed.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by MontyB

So your contention is that its all the other guys fault mean while the other guy is saying it is all your fault and because it is politically wrong for either of you to actually look at it with an open mind nothing ever gets fixed.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

The Reps share of the blame was ending the firewall between Commercial & Investment banking so that the meltdown was system wide instead of only one segment. The problem was caused by Carter agreeing to force Banks to lower morgage qualification "so everyone could own a home", that was enforced under Clinton at the insistince of ACORN, Obama's "Community Organizer" group. If even a few Dems had the courage to join McCain's call for an inquiry into housing & took a look at the house of cards that had been built, instead of playing politics & denouncing him, maybe most of this could have been avoided.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Which is why nothing changes and politicians devolve into corporate yes men.
Initially people were elected because they were known in a region for doing good now you are given a politician to vote for by which ever party you now follow blindly whose only difference from the other guy is party logo or tie colour.

Superior logic indeed, yet the real danger is how long does soceity as a whole just play along with the osterich affect, and shut out any attempt to search for a means to hold politicians to their word?

Move consequence of bad public service back to the voters, not as is with the lobbyist.

Originally Posted by MontyB

(This is not just a US thing this is a world wide thing, your choice is politician clone 1 or 2 from the presidential cloning facility on Wall Street just as mine is prime minister clone 1 or 2).

A western world thing, there are subversive means of achieving goals via direct and often non concealed means to take over a governing body or ecnomic entity., (Such as a Private Gas Company by government).

These things would cause an public uproar in the West, Americans in particular rather have their goods knicked the polite and subversive way of watching the theft on TV as unnammed men in unmarked cars whisper in the ears of policy makers. It's easier on the eyes than having a Putin like security service just plain out call the shots in front of everyone.

Because for all those who complain about the inneffeciency of this method,

Let us look at the most effective form on economic and government relations.

Meaning a having a forceful small number of people in countrol of everything.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I oppose all Obama stands for (as required by a challenger) which means your choice is a guy that knows change is needed but cant deliver or someone that actively opposes change out of preference to a system that has clearly failed.

I oppose both Canidates, more less out lack of faith in the office anymore.
As before mentioned I am going to vote but more in an effort to stop the bleeding, not usher in "change".

"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry."

Mr. Zappa couldn't have said it better.

It's a side show, it's a disguise, because those who are really benefiting from the way things are know that if they can keep complacent voters quiet for just a little bit longer, they might have a chance to print money faster than the current inflation. And hopefully they can take off out of the country before people decide enough is enough.

Lest us not forget, Romney is campgaining, yes it's great to dream if only for a moment he has the capacity or actual will to change everything, but it ain't happening.

In my honest opinion Romney is very very good at "business as usual". And has some interesting campgain funders. And with Romney's "business savvy" personality he seems like just the guy to push forward a or dimiss a treasurey policy change or two.

You often have the situation of the Democrats in the majority on Congress and then have a Republican President or visa versa, and that happens is one group is trying to make the other look bad by failing to pass laws that might help the country. Look back to last year over the trouble over budget and who would not pass it and who would not sign it. Now why don't you hold the election for President at the same time as Congress and you might get one group in who is doing job and if they didn't it will clearly show that they are a bunch of wallies.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Now why don't you hold the election for President at the same time as Congress and you might get one group in who is doing job and if they didn't it will clearly show that they are a bunch of wallies.

The Founding fathers sat up a bunch of checks & balances to try to controll the power of the Federal Govt. As far as timing of elections vs the Prez...The House of Representatives is supposed to represent "The People". It is reelected in its entirity every 2 years. The Senate was intended to represent The States, the State Governments, as a way for the States to rein in Federal power. The Senators were appointed by the Governor or State Legislature. It was part of the FF's intention that we are a Representative Republic, not a mob rule "Democracy". People have been working to make us a Democracy, & passed an Admendment making Senators open to voting, changing them to merely Super Representatives. One third of the Senate is up for election every 2 years, Senators have 6 yr terms. Opportunity for fast change was provided for in the House elections only. In '08 the people gave the Dems total controll of Congress, if the Dems could have got 100% of their Party members to for for their Bills, they could have passed anything, w/o a single Rep. vote. The Dems used the opportunity to advance the plan to take over health care & increase Govt dependancy, basicly vote buying, & they double the National Debt in less than 3 years after bashing Bush for doubling it in 8.

Romney is an idiot. In my opinion, Barack Obama is probably the best thing to happen to the United States in the past ten years. He's trying to create a better America, Universal Healthcare and all that... that's good stuff, positive stuff!

Meanwhile Mitt's making an ass out of himself on national television, if he gets into the White House, not even God can help the United States.

I would happily see Obama get another four years in the hotseat, before I saw a Republican with ignorance not quite up there, but close to, the ignorance of the war-mongering, "yee-haw-oops" George Bush Jr.

Originally Posted by hawky94

Romney is an idiot. In my opinion, Barack Obama is probably the best thing to happen to the United States in the past ten years. He's trying to create a better America, Universal Healthcare and all that... that's good stuff, positive stuff!

Previously... In 2008.

Originally Posted by hawky94

Meanwhile Mitt's making an ass out of himself on national television, if he gets into the White House, not even God can help the United States.

He's being Mitt, guy's gotta record. He's not going to be good graces and promises if he is elected, he's gonna put America up for wholesale.

Originally Posted by hawky94

I would happily see Obama get another four years in the hotseat, before I saw a Republican with ignorance not quite up there, but close to, the ignorance of the war-mongering, "yee-haw-oops" George Bush Jr.

It's funny about all these militia groups and neo conservitives pin on Obama. When in all acutallity five minutes of research can point out half the things that they say they have problems with him are stemming from the very Problems Bush put into writting up to the last months of his term in office.

Yet then these people didn't say a word. Quite Humerous actually.

Also you can insert the name Republocrat or Dempublican into any politicians resume anymore. Voter's who cling to just party lines either understand the situation and have ulterior motives for voting for their party.

Or are just lazy and don't take the time to look at the careers of each canditate and make a thought descion to who would fit the job the best.

Which is why although he is far from perfect or as experianced as I would have liked. When faced with either a stroke or cancer, I guess I'll lead towards Obama.