NationStates Jolt Archive

And Howard had it coming too (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/australia.obama.ap/).
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who will face his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama's proposed deadline would spell disaster for the Middle East.

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
Damn. Howard sounds an awful lot like Dubya there, doesn't he?

But Obama's campaign is having none of it.
Gibbs went on to say that Howard was not in a position to be overly critical.

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."
To Obama's fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls, I say "more of that please." You're going to be shit on from every possible direction for the next two years--don't just take it.

Pwned.

Wouldn't it be even funnier if he literally bitchslapped him?

Also, you're getting modded soon. I guarantee it.

Damn. Howard sounds an awful lot like Dubya there, doesn't he?
Even Bush doesn't seem to have such propensity for trolling as that right-wing fool Howard.

Also, you're getting modded soon. I guarantee it.
What kind of pathetic insinuation are you making here?

Yeah, Howard can go stuff himself. His idiotic opinion about how much the US democrats are terrorists means even less if he were, ya know, an American himself. Instead of some scumbag chickenshit aussie stalinist.

What kind of pathetic insinuation are you making here?
That my title will be changed. It's on the edge, no question.

Damn, I was hoping for a literal slap. Still, not bad.

What kind of pathetic insinuation are you making here?

That his title's gonna be changed. That's not pathetic, it's very likely. Think before you hit "submit reply".

That my title will be changed. It's on the edge, no question.

Christ, has it gotten that bad around here?

Christ, has it gotten that bad around here?

Yeah. The mods seem to be really worried about titles these days.

Christ, has it gotten that bad around here?
Titles have to be school-friendly, but I was having difficulty finding a word that delivered the appropriate sense of smackdown that comment laid upon Howard.

Howard's just bitter 'cause he knows Bush ain't gunna be stickin around that much longer.

*cheers*

I love to see those hawks put in their place. I will await for more bitchslaps to come. :)

Any school that officially sanctions its students' presence on this forum needs to be bitch slapped.

It doesn't. It uses the game, and the sidebar on the game displays the name of threads on the forums.

Titles have to be school-friendly, but I was having difficulty finding a word that delivered the appropriate sense of smackdown that comment laid upon Howard.

Any school that officially sanctions its students' presence on this forum needs to be bitch slapped.

Yeah, Howard can go stuff himself. His idiotic opinion about how much the US democrats are terrorists means even less if he were, ya know, an American himself. Instead of some scumbag chickenshit aussie stalinist.

I see you have a great love for our Southwestern neighbor.

I see you have a great love for our Southwestern neighbor.

lol. :D

I see you have a great love for our Southwestern neighbor.

I don't mind Australians in general and the country itself is a beautiful place.

It's just too bad they elected a stalinist scumbag.

Yeah. The mods seem to be really worried about titles these days.

Damn! Is NS going to become the NS of political correctness? http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/vibrate.gif

Bitch got owned.

Damn! Is NS going to become the NS of political correctness? http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/vibrate.gif

No, just the titles.

For example, I will now demonstrate:

What the fuck is that smiley face? I giant fucking vibrator for some fucking mexican who took my fucking job?

:p

Howard's just bitter 'cause he knows Bush ain't gunna be stickin around that much longer.

Howard is running for re-election and; "He is seeking a fifth term later this year, and recent polls suggest voters are increasingly unhappy about his refusal to set a deadline for withdrawing Australian troops from the Middle East." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251351,00.html So he may be gone before Bush is gone.

I don't mind Australians in general and the country itself is a beautiful place.

It's just too bad they elected a stalinist scumbag.

Well, I can't think of anything that is perfect. So a beautiful country will have some offsetting feature, in this case its a loudmouth Bush ass-kisser leading that country. Simply the price to pay. :)

Well, I can't think of anything that is perfect. So a beautiful country will have some offsetting feature, in this case its a loudmouth Bush ass-kisser leading that country. Simply the price to pay. :)

Wait...by your logic, HITLER IS RUNNING NEW ZEALAND!!! :eek:

DUN DUN DUUU!

Yeah, Howard can go stuff himself. His idiotic opinion about how much the US democrats are terrorists means even less if he were, ya know, an American himself. Instead of some scumbag chickenshit aussie stalinist.

he wish he was American

I saw this on CNN, they omitted the part where Obama's aides said that Australia had 1,400 troops in Iraq. Made the aides look like they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Left-wing bias at its best, eh?

And Howard had it coming too (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/australia.obama.ap/).

Damn. Howard sounds an awful lot like Dubya there, doesn't he?

But Obama's campaign is having none of it.

To Obama's fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls, I say "more of that please." You're going to be shit on from every possible direction for the next two years--don't just take it.

Nazz, I've got just one question: Do you support Obama?

he wish he was American

Correction, he wishes he was Bill O'Reilly.

Wait...by your logic, HITLER IS RUNNING NEW ZEALAND!!! :eek:

DUN DUN DUUU!

Now did I suggest such a horrifying thing? ;)

Correction, he wishes he was Bill O'Reilly.

and taller

Damn, I was hoping for a literal slap. Still, not bad.
Same here. :D

Correction, he wishes he was Bill O'Reilly.

No, Bill is to much of a Centrist. He wishes he were Rush Limbaugh. :D

No, Bill is to much of a Centrist. He wishes he were Rush Limbaugh. :D

Or maybe Ann Coulter

So basically, when asked if he is right, you guys all respond by saying he's a conservative? Ah, that makes a lot of sense, pretty soon here we'll someone like me who asks "but he's correct" and all you guys can do is say bo-ho and call me a Republican. Great, I can't wait to see what you guys do when you grow up and have to live with facts.

Obama doesn't seem to like facts either, facts like Australia is currently giving more troops then Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Estonia, Republic of Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Moldova, Slovenia, Fiji, Canada, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Spain, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Hungary, New Zealand and Iceland. That is just, of course, of the nations who promised troops, then pulled out, or the nations that have stayed but don't have as many troops in as Australia. Meaning it doesn't include the rest of the world.

Obama doesn't seem to like facts either, facts like Australia is currently giving more troops then Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Estonia, Republic of Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Moldova, Slovenia, Fiji, Canada, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Spain, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Hungary, New Zealand and Iceland. That is just, of course, of the nations who promised troops, then pulled out, or the nations that have stayed but don't have as many troops in as Australia. Meaning it doesn't include the rest of the world.

So because they're contributing more troops than other nations, therefore they're making the majority of the sacrifices and the Democratic party supports terrorism? Can't argue with logic like that...

Obama doesn't seem to like facts either, facts like Australia is currently giving more troops then Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Estonia, Republic of Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Moldova, Slovenia, Fiji, Canada, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Spain, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Hungary, New Zealand and Iceland. That is just, of course, of the nations who promised troops, then pulled out, or the nations that have stayed but don't have as many troops in as Australia. Meaning it doesn't include the rest of the world.

Neither the leaders of Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Estonia, Republic of Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Moldova, Slovenia, Fiji, Canada, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Spain, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Hungary, New Zealand or Iceland have implicitly accused Obama and the Democrats of supporting terrorism.

beautiful response!

Obama doesn't seem to like facts either, facts like Australia is currently giving more troops then *snip a bunch of countries that don't fucking matter*
Obama didn't reply, an aide did, and who gives a fuck how many troops other countries are putting in Iraq? Their prime ministers arn't being dicks.

Obama is winning me over today with this and that article in Rolling Stone... cool.

And Howard had it coming too (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/australia.obama.ap/).

Damn. Howard sounds an awful lot like Dubya there, doesn't he?

Funny how Prime Minister Howard is actually correct isn't?

But Obama's campaign is having none of it.

To Obama's fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls, I say "more of that please." You're going to be shit on from every possible direction for the next two years--don't just take it.

And how big do you think the Australian Army is? Jeez... People complain that we are stretched then and we have one of the world's largest militaries. Australia only has a 26,000 man army with a 17,000 troop reserve. They also have a small airforce as well. They're military can not handle a bigger deployment than what they have.

And how big do you think the Australian Army is? Jeez... People complain that we are stretched then and we have one of the world's largest militaries. Australia only has a 26,000 man army with a 17,000 troop reserve. They also have a small airforce as well. They're military can not handle a bigger deployment than what they have.
Then Howard should shut the fuck up.

Funny how Prime Minister Howard is actually correct isn't?





You must know in your heart that you are lying. Come on... tell the truth. We'll forgive you.

Neither the leaders of Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Armenia, Estonia, Republic of Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Moldova, Slovenia, Fiji, Canada, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Spain, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Norway, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Hungary, New Zealand or Iceland have implicitly accused Obama and the Democrats of supporting terrorism.

Of course not, then that would be the same as implicitly accusing themselves, and they are smarter, if only by a tad, then that.

And Howard had it coming too (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/australia.obama.ap/).

Damn. Howard sounds an awful lot like Dubya there, doesn't he?




To a spooky degree. Thats classic seppo right wing speak.

And totally off topic - what age group are these schools with access allowing near this forum?

And Howard had it coming too (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/australia.obama.ap/).

Damn. Howard sounds an awful lot like Dubya there, doesn't he?

But Obama's campaign is having none of it.

To Obama's fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls, I say "more of that please." You're going to be shit on from every possible direction for the next two years--don't just take it.

Howard just got BURNED.

Damn, I was hoping for a literal slap. Still, not bad.

That's what I thought too.

Every time some one proposes a troop pull out, the conservatives start saying "The terrorists are hoping X person wins and are circling Y date and X person's victory would be a victory for terrorist." How long until "terrorists are waiting for March 2008" becomes "terrorists are waiting for May 2010" or June 2020? Not long at all. Every time the conservative asshats accuse some one of supporting terrorists for trying to end this farce of a war in the Middle East, the closer we come to drawing it out indefinitely. There can be no victory in Iraq, terrorists arn't going to suddenly go away, especially with the kind of fuel being in an engagement in the Middle East throws on their fire. It's time to cut out the bullshit and be like "we were a bunch of dumbasses and we now recognize it and are removing troops from Iraq" and let the cards fall where they may.

Then Howard should shut the fuck up.

HA! I think Obama's aides need to shut up since it is apparent they do not have all the facts themselves.

Nazz, I've got just one question: Do you support Obama?

I don't support anyone at this early stage, but Obama is near the top of my list of people I'm watching. Top three probably. The guy I want isn't officially running yet.

HA! I think Obama's aides need to shut up since it is apparent they do not have all the facts themselves.
I'm pretty sure Howard being a douchebag are all the pertinent facts.

I don't support anyone at this early stage, but Obama is near the top of my list of people I'm watching. Top three probably. The guy I want isn't officially running yet.

Oh okay. Who's the guy you want, out of curiosity?

I'm pretty sure Howard being a douchebag are all the pertinent facts.

You would. However, your just another person on the other end of an internet connection.

You would. However, your just another person on the other end of an internet connection.

Ad hominem argument does not in any way support your opinion. Care to try again.

HA! I think Obama's aides need to shut up since it is apparent they do not have all the facts themselves.

Obama's aide called Howard a fuckhead. In a more polite manner of course. I think Howard's comments speak for themselves, plenty of facts there for Obama's camp.

Funny how Prime Minister Howard is actually correct isn't?

People like you are the reason why I wouldn't spit on conservatives if they were on fire. I mean, I could say essentially the same thing about the Republicans, and have a better case--that given how shittily the administration has prosecuted these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how that's benefited al-Qaeda in terms of recruitment and support, they ought to be praying like fuck that the Republicans stay in power and keep doing what they're doing. That's actually a reasonable argument. But I'd never make it and mean it because I'm not a fucking douchebag like Howard and those people who support his statements seem to be.

For all the people afraid of little kids seeing certain words on certain thread titles, I just have this to say: it has been my own experience that the average child (at least in my country; I imagine it's about the same elsewhere) has already learned just about every word out there by the third grade. The possible exception being some poor, over-protected homeschooler being taught by religious-fundamentalist parents, but then again such a kid wouldn't be exposed to anything so worldview-expanding as NS, would they? Let's face it, trying to shelter kids from dirty words just makes them that much more fascinated by them. Now, I'm not in favor of people being taught to, say, start off job interviews with a George Carlin impression, but history shows us that trying to make things taboo just increases their appeal. Look at Prohibition.

Oh okay. Who's the guy you want, out of curiosity?

My dream ticket is Gore-Obama. Okay--my real dream has Howard Dean in there somewhere, but he took himself out of the running to rebuild the DNC where he's done a hell of a job, so I'm left with Gore-Obama. He was right on the war being a disastrous move, he's been right on global warming all along, and he's already won once. Except for a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that will go down as one of the most infamous in US history, he'd have been in charge all along.

My dream ticket is Gore-Obama. Okay--my real dream has Howard Dean in there somewhere, but he took himself out of the running to rebuild the DNC where he's done a hell of a job, so I'm left with Gore-Obama. He was right on the war being a disastrous move, he's been right on global warming all along, and he's already won once. Except for a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that will go down as one of the most infamous in US history, he'd have been in charge all along.

Something I was never able to quite square up in the 2004 race was how Howard Dean, a fairly centrist governor, suddenly transformed into this dream liberal. I agree, though, that he's been doing a good job with the DNC and ought to stay there. I'd definitely vote Gore-Obama if they promised to make Wesley Clark the secretary of Defense. Gore is basically done with politics, though, and I don't think Obama has quite the experience he needs yet to be an effective president. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat in 2012, though.

You would. However, your just another person on the other end of an internet connection.

Oh come ON Corny, are you even TRYING anymore? You can do better than that!

Nazz: I really don't know about Gore. As I've mentioned previously I met the guy once at a book signing--my family dragged me along with a bribe about eating dinner out at a specific nice restaurant I really like--and he was basically a pandering buffoon that seriously destroyed any image I might have had of the guy. He also seems vaguely alarmist with some of his global warming views, and by that I merely mean his timetable which I think is accelerated somewhat for political gain, though of course I could be mistaken given how much we've fucked up the atmosphere. Still...I would not be too against such a ticket. The question is, could he get over his loss in 2000 and the image he presented there? If he couldn't, he'd end up dooming Obama on his careening crash.

For all the people afraid of little kids seeing certain words on certain thread titles, I just have this to say: it has been my own experience that the average child (at least in my country; I imagine it's about the same elsewhere) has already learned just about every word out there by the third grade. The possible exception being some poor, over-protected homeschooler being taught by religious-fundamentalist parents, but then again such a kid wouldn't be exposed to anything so worldview-expanding as NS, would they? Let's face it, trying to shelter kids from dirty words just makes them that much more fascinated by them. Now, I'm not in favor of people being taught to, say, start off job interviews with a George Carlin impression, but history shows us that trying to make things taboo just increases their appeal. Look at Prohibition.
It doesn't matter what we 'feel kids should handle,' schools have filters and won't show pages with certain language, so when a thread with one of those words is the most current it will show up on a nation's page and that page won't be allowed to be displayed for the student.

It matters little what we think kids should be exposed to. There is no age limit on the forum itself and we can get away with a whole fucking lot in our posts. It's not about puritanism or 'think of the children,' but rather accessibility for those who use the game itself as an aide.

People like you....

Oh grow up Nazz. Its people like you that make me hate politics and makes me wonder why it is my major of choice. Could it be that in a debate that you have 2 sides in every debate? Could it also mean that maybe someone posts a side here that does not 100% reflect their true personal views? Politics is not as clear cut as people are making it out to believe. I know you are smarter than that Nazz. I know that you know that Politics enters into everything.

Maybe if you look at it from the leader's point of view for once in your fucking god damn life instead from the peanut gallery then maybe, just maybe you can see things in a 100% different light than what is being reported on TV.

This is the problem I have with many backseat politicians analyzing everything. Yes, the media has reported things that we need to know but they also hype everything up to an extreme that gives many people a false impression as to what is really going on. You and I both know this and it is far worse when it comes to politics, election time, and wars.

So grow the fuck up!

My dream ticket is Gore-Obama. Okay--my real dream has Howard Dean in there somewhere, but he took himself out of the running to rebuild the DNC where he's done a hell of a job, so I'm left with Gore-Obama. He was right on the war being a disastrous move, he's been right on global warming all along, and he's already won once. Except for a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that will go down as one of the most infamous in US history, he'd have been in charge all along.

He won the popular vote true but lost the Florida vote fair and square. So stop with the lying bullshit.

He won the popular vote true but lost the Florida vote fair and square. So stop with the lying bullshit.

Yeah, because who cares about the opinion of the American people anyway?

You would. However, your just another person on the other end of an internet connection.

And that makes you another person with an opinion that doesn't matter.
Point. Set. Match.

Yeah, because who cares about the opinion of the American people anyway?

Welcome to the American Electoral System. It does not matter who wins the popular vote of the country but who wins the most Electoral Votes. In this case, Bush took the Electoral vote in 2000 thus making him President.

And that makes you another person with an opinion that doesn't matter.
Point. Set. Match.

Indeed. My opinion does not matter on here just like Nazz's Opinion does not matter, your opinion does not matter and the opinions of the other posters here does not matter.

Maybe if you look at it from the leader's point of view for once in your fucking god damn life instead from the peanut gallery then maybe, just maybe you can see things in a 100% different light than what is being reported on TV.
Ok, Howard's point of view: "Hmm, I think I want Bush to give me a high five today so I will go public and start spewing rank amateur bullshit about how the terrorists support Obama and how the Iraq War should go on indefinitely, there is no possible way I can get my ass handed to me for being a douchebag."

Corny, how many times have we told you to not forget your crotchety old Christian medication? :p

Oh shut up before I start in with you as well. I've had it with partisan bullshit from both sides.

Oh grow up Nazz. Its people like you that make me hate politics and makes me wonder why it is my major of choice. Could it be that in a debate that you have 2 sides in every debate? Could it also mean that maybe someone posts a side here that does not 100% reflect their true personal views? Politics is not as clear cut as people are making it out to believe. I know you are smarter than that Nazz. I know that you know that Politics enters into everything.

Maybe if you look at it from the leader's point of view for once in your fucking god damn life instead from the peanut gallery then maybe, just maybe you can see things in a 100% different light than what is being reported on TV.

This is the problem I have with many backseat politicians analyzing everything. Yes, the media has reported things that we need to know but they also hype everything up to an extreme that gives many people a false impression as to what is really going on. You and I both know this and it is far worse when it comes to politics, election time, and wars.

So grow the fuck up!
Corny, how many times have we told you to not forget your crotchety old Christian medication? :p

He won the popular vote true but lost the Florida vote fair and square. So stop with the lying bullshit.

Go crawl back in your hole, child. The adults are talking here.

Oh shut up before I start in with you as well. I've had it with partisan bullshit from both sides.

We're terrified. You'll get pwned, then disappear for four pages, and come back as though you won the previous argument. We don't forget your style just because you change your nation name.

As an Australian, that article just made me like Obama all the better. Our Prime Minister does have a bit of a reputation as a conservative asshat who would sell our firstborns to Satan if it meant a stronger economy (I suspect that's the real reason he's so pro-american). Kudos to Obama's aides to putting him in his place.

Oh, and as for the list of nations in the coalition: Hungary has troops in Iraq:eek: ? What the hell were they thinking?

Go crawl back in your hole, child. The adults are talking here.

And this proves that you do not want to listen to the god damn facts of life. Why don't you crawl out of your god damn hole you lousy piece of shit and see the real world for once in your life.

Oh shut up before I start in with you as well. I've had it with partisan bullshit from both sides.

Yeah, you have proven yourself to be such a non-partisan debater always lacking in bullshit. :rolleyes:

You should think before striking out at people you disagree with you.

Yeah, you have proven yourself to be such a non-partisan debater always lacking in bullshit. :rolleyes:

You should think before striking out at people you disagree with you.

I try to debate civily but when people strike out at me for disagreeing with what they are saying I strike back and you have the aghasity to tell me to think?

I try to debate civily but when people strike out at me for disagreeing with what they are saying I strike back and you have the aghasity to tell me to think?

http://world.gr/forum/images/smilies/rofl.gifhttp://world.gr/forum/images/smilies/rofl.gif
Okay, I'm fine.

I predict a Mod intervention if all of you don't tone down the flaming and ad hominem attacks. This isn't constructive, guys.

I predict a Mod intervention if all of you don't tone down the flaming and ad hominem attacks. This isn't constructive, guys.

Wow a voice of reason.

Oh shut up before I start in with you as well. I've had it with partisan bullshit from both sides.

I'm hardly a partisan hack, and that was a joke. Calm down.

I try to debate civily but when people strike out at me for disagreeing with what they are saying I strike back and you have the aghasity to tell me to think?

One would think that if you want to prove that someones arguement is faulty then you would ignore any little insults that may accompany it and simply demolish their posts. Instead you participate in flame trading like a couple of kids. Or n00bs. Hardly a way to prove yourself as correct in a topic.

And are you serious that me asking you to think is wrong? :confused:

That my title will be changed. It's on the edge, no question.

In this brave new world, there shall be no edges.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/dull.jpg

One would think that if you want to prove that someones arguement is faulty then you would ignore any little insults that may accompany it and simply demolish their posts. Instead you participate in flame trading like a couple of kids. Or n00bs. Hardly a way to prove yourself as correct.

I'm tired of the little insults. Its all I hear anymore. Its stupid. Hence why I blew up. I'm tired of it.

And are you serious that asking you to think is wrong? :confused:

You know what I mean!

In this brave new world, there shall be no edges.

http://static.mintchaos.com/wallprev/center_for_the_dull_400.jpg

Only because it's a circle.

Something I was never able to quite square up in the 2004 race was how Howard Dean, a fairly centrist governor, suddenly transformed into this dream liberal.

You have to make the run to the base in order to win the primary, and then jet back to center for the general election to get swing votes. It happens every year.
and I don't think Obama has quite the experience he needs yet to be an effective president. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat in 2012, though.

I cannot fathom why experience is a problem with a man running for President. The only way to get presidential experience is being the president! Also, how much experience did Bush have? He won governorship on name alone after never having been elected to anything else in his life. You look at other presidents, and they too lack "real" experience. Jackson served very little time in the Senate and hated it before being nominated, Tyler had zero experience, Zachary Taylor never voted before his election day, Lincoln served one term in the House before he was a Republican, Grant was a military man, Eisenhower too, and Ford and Garfield came straight from the House.

What experience did they have?

pwn3d muthafucka!!!! :cool:

Only because it's a circle.

Well, that's what I always liked about the Unitarians and their symbology. Lessee here... how did that go again?

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/library/collections/uu/images/big-chalice_small.jpg

"They drew a circle and shut me out,
A heretic, a rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win,
We drew a circle and took them in."

...Except I couldn't absolutely get behind that one, as there's all sorts of rubes, dupes and dufuses I could dearly do without in my day-to-day. But according to the belief-o-matic, my spiritual side is still 100% Unitarian.

I can certainly understand that but then this is the fault of them, not you. By staying above it all it will simply make the attacker look petty. Or stupid. Personal attacks simply take away from the arguement posters make.



I do. ;)

But venting on others is hardly worth it in the long run.

You are indeed correct but I just needed to vent that. I actually feel abit better now that I got it off my chest.

I'm tired of the little insults. Its all I hear anymore. Its stupid. Hence why I blew up. I'm tired of it.

I can certainly understand that but then this is the fault of them, not you. By staying above it all it will simply make the attacker look petty. Or stupid. Personal attacks simply take away from the arguement posters make.

You know what I mean!

I do. ;)

But venting on others is hardly worth it in the long run.

belief-o-matic, my spiritual side is still 100% Unitarian.

"Belief-o-Matic"?

this is invisible text. Unless you highlilght it, in which case it's not. Isn't that interesting?

"Belief-o-Matic"?

this is invisible text. Unless you highlilght it, in which case it's not. Isn't that interesting?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

"Belief-o-Matic"?

this is invisible text. Unless you highlilght it, in which case it's not. Isn't that interesting?

Yeah. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html)

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html



1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
3. Nontheist (84%)
4. Liberal Quakers (80%)
5. Neo-Pagan (77%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (70%)
8. Reform Judaism (63%)
9. Taoism (55%)
10. New Age (54%)
11. New Thought (41%)
12. Bah�'� Faith (39%)
13. Sikhism (39%)
14. Mahayana Buddhism (38%)
15. Scientology (38%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (31%)
17. Orthodox Quaker (31%)
18. Orthodox Judaism (28%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (27%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (25%)
21. Eastern Orthodox (20%)
22. Islam (20%)
23. Roman Catholic (20%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (15%)
25. Jainism (12%)
26. Hinduism (7%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

Interesting.

Yeah. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html)

I know I'm butting in but oh well.

1. Reform Judaism (100%)
2. Bah�'� Faith (89%)
3. Liberal Quakers (80%)
4. Sikhism (80%)
5. Orthodox Judaism (79%)
6. Islam (75%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
8. Unitarian Universalism (70%)
9. Jainism (63%)
10. Neo-Pagan (60%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (58%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (56%)
13. New Age (51%)
14. Scientology (50%)
15. Theravada Buddhism (50%)
16. New Thought (50%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (42%)
18. Hinduism (41%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (39%)
20. Taoism (37%)
21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (37%)
22. Secular Humanism (37%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (34%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (33%)
25. Roman Catholic (33%)
26. Jehovah's Witness (30%)
27. Nontheist (19%)

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
3. Nontheist (84%)
4. Liberal Quakers (80%)
5. Neo-Pagan (77%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (70%)
8. Reform Judaism (63%)
9. Taoism (55%)
10. New Age (54%)
11. New Thought (41%)
12. Bah�'� Faith (39%)
13. Sikhism (39%)
14. Mahayana Buddhism (38%)
15. Scientology (38%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (31%)
17. Orthodox Quaker (31%)
18. Orthodox Judaism (28%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (27%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (25%)
21. Eastern Orthodox (20%)
22. Islam (20%)
23. Roman Catholic (20%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (15%)
25. Jainism (12%)
26. Hinduism (7%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

Interesting.



+ +

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (94%)
3. Reform Judaism (92%)
4. Mahayana Buddhism (88%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (88%)
6. Neo-Pagan (86%)
7. Sikhism (81%)
8. Jainism (81%)
9. Theravada Buddhism (80%)
10. Bah�'� Faith (79%)
11. New Age (75%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (69%)
13. Hinduism (66%)
14. Orthodox Judaism (63%)
15. Taoism (60%)
16. Islam (57%)
17. New Thought (53%)
18. Secular Humanism (52%)
19. Scientology (49%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (48%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (45%)
22. Eastern Orthodox (41%)
23. Roman Catholic (41%)
24. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (34%)
25. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (31%)
26. Nontheist (27%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (18%)

I lost my other results so I took it again.

Aren't we getting slightly off topic?

Aren't we getting slightly off topic?

Actually we are getting way off topic.

Well, we are rather hijacking the thread (maybe someone should start up a belief-o-matic thread?). Let's stop doing that.

Aren't we getting slightly off topic?

Well, we are rather hijacking the thread (maybe someone should start up a belief-o-matic thread?). Let's stop doing that.

Agreed.

I'm undecided about Obama, his inexperience is concerning. I like his fundamentals, change capital hill's political system and all that, but what are his exact views on Iraq is he for immediately pulling out?

You have to make the run to the base in order to win the primary, and then jet back to center for the general election to get swing votes. It happens every year.


I cannot fathom why experience is a problem with a man running for President. The only way to get presidential experience is being the president! Also, how much experience did Bush have? He won governorship on name alone after never having been elected to anything else in his life. You look at other presidents, and they too lack "real" experience. Jackson served very little time in the Senate and hated it before being nominated, Tyler had zero experience, Zachary Taylor never voted before his election day, Lincoln served one term in the House before he was a Republican, Grant was a military man, Eisenhower too, and Ford and Garfield came straight from the House.

What experience did they have?

*returns topic*

Har! Nice one Mr Aide.

About time someone told Howard to put a fucking sock in it repulsive little slug that he is.

As for Obama...I'll be more impressed when he starts to bitchslap the scumbags in the Whitehouse. I fully expect to be disappointed.

How is his inexperience a problem exactly?

As for Obama...I'll be more impressed when he starts to bitchslap the scumbags in the Whitehouse. I fully expect to be disappointed.

He has been talking about what he wants the future to look like. Plenty of time to Bush-bash like everyone else. Hopefully he will keep it down though. Would sound like he's peddling for votes with shouts of "bush is evil!" Makes him look better to stay away from that.

He has been talking about what he wants the future to look like. Plenty of time to Bush-bash like everyone else. Hopefully he will keep it down though. Would sound like he's peddling for votes with shouts of "bush is evil!" Makes him look better to stay away from that.

More like neo con bashing. If I wanted to bash Bush I'd have said Bush.

He needs to make sure that every last one of the neo con cabal is rooted out and exposed for the psychopathic nutcases they are.

How is his inexperience a problem exactly?

He's not completely evil yet? A problem for any politician.

More like neo con bashing. If I wanted to bash Bush I'd have said Bush.

He needs to make sure that every last one of the neo con cabal is rooted out and exposed for the psychopathic nutcases they are.

Well its still a long time to the election, I'm sure he will treat the fundies as they deserve.

He's not completely evil yet? A problem for any politician.

It just seems stupid to me to hear the two biggest knocks against him are his name and his inexperience.

No one has explained how he is inexperienced, and the name thing is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why vote on name likability?

He's not completely evil yet? A problem for any politician.
I haven't seen him in Bill Bailey's Scale of Evil yet, so he can't be that bad.

Agreed.

I'm undecided about Obama, his inexperience is concerning. I like his fundamentals, change capital hill's political system and all that, but what are his exact views on Iraq is he for immediately pulling out?

He has introduced legislation which would require the US to be out of Iraq by, I believe, the end of March 2008. Going on memory here, so I could be wrong on the date.

He has been talking about what he wants the future to look like. Plenty of time to Bush-bash like everyone else. Hopefully he will keep it down though. Would sound like he's peddling for votes with shouts of "bush is evil!" Makes him look better to stay away from that.

That is indeed true. He would be better to stay away from it.

He has introduced legislation which would require the US to be out of Iraq by, I believe, the end of March 2008. Going on memory here, so I could be wrong on the date.

I think that's a little early and a little too steep of a pullout. Personally, I think a withdrawal should be done over the next two years with a gradual drawdown over time, say to 50% of March 2007 forces by March 2008 and complete pullout by March 2009. That way, we would still have some forces there to finish up any additional training or equipping of Iraqi security and we would still have enough soldiers in the country in the event that something serious happens and Iraq needs additional firepower.

It just seems stupid to me to hear the two biggest knocks against him are his name and his inexperience.

No one has explained how he is inexperienced, and the name thing is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why vote on name likability?

He's in his first political office and is a first term senator. As far as I know, he has not done much at the local political level and therefor, is inexperience but that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

He has introduced legislation which would require the US to be out of Iraq by, I believe, the end of March 2008. Going on memory here, so I could be wrong on the date.

Hey, don't worry - I certainly won't pillory you for it. Oh, and sorry for the hijack.

And is that really Corny, or was that just a guess on your part? Good spotting, if I may say so - he's been side-kicking himself to IDF on any given pro-Israel thread going of late, so I'd had my suspicions...

He's in his first political office and is a first term senator. As far as I know, he has not done much at the local political level and therefor, is inexperience but that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

You know incorrectly. He was a State Senator before running for the US Senate, and before that he was a community activist. In short, he's done a lot at the local level.

He's in his first political office and is a first term senator. As far as I know, he has not done much at the local political level and therefor, is inexperience but that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Wrong. Illinois State Senator before losing a primary for Congress in 2000. He was known for his bipartisan abilities while in the senate.

Hey, don't worry - I certainly won't pillory you for it. Oh, and sorry for the hijack.

And is that really Corny, or was that just a guess on your part? Good spotting, if I may say so - he's been side-kicking himself to IDF on any given pro-Israel thread going of late, so I'd had my suspicions...

De nada. It gave Corny enough time to come back into the discussion as though nothing had happened. I didn't figure it out--someone outed him a while back on another thread.

He's in his first political office and is a first term senator. As far as I know, he has not done much at the local political level and therefor, is inexperience but that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Because Presidents are big local level political movers and shakers.

HA! I think Obama's aides need to shut up since it is apparent they do not have all the facts themselves.
What, you think it's fair that they should have to put up with accusations of supporting terrorists without replying?

I know you don't think that. Either you're engaging in second-rate devil's advocacy (again) or you're lying, which comes naturally to Bush supporters.

This is the problem I have with many backseat politicians analyzing everything. Yes, the media has reported things that we need to know but they also hype everything up to an extreme that gives many people a false impression as to what is really going on. You and I both know this and it is far worse when it comes to politics, election time, and wars.


Without stating any extremes -

1 - Iraq has cost hundreds of thousands of Arab lives, thousands of Americans.
2- It is a financial black hole so far.
3 - It has undermined US credibility.
4 - It has destabilised the region.
5 - It has made Iran that much harder to reason with.
6 - It has increased support for the extreme Islamist movement.
7 - It has distracted minds, money and military from Afghanistan which was a legitimate agreed upon enterprise and undermined the credibility of that operation.

"clusterfuck" is the expression, I think.

You know incorrectly. He was a State Senator before running for the US Senate, and before that he was a community activist. In short, he's done a lot at the local level.

Thank you for the information Nazz. It is greatly appreciated. :)

What, you think it's fair that they should have to put up with accusations of supporting terrorists without replying?

I didn't see anything where Howard stated that the dems, most notably Obama, supported terrorism. I see a statement that said that timelines will help terrorists more than hurt them. Now tell me how that equals labeling the Democratic Party terrorist supports?

I'm afraid I'm not liking this as much as my American counterparts.

All Channel Nine is gonna have to do is put a "Democrat Presidential Candidate disses Aussie diggers" headline on it, and that'll be it.

Without stating any extremes -

1 - Iraq has cost hundreds of thousands of Arab lives, thousands of Americans.

World War 2 cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, thousands of Americans.

2- It is a financial black hole so far.

The New Deal and World War II put us in debt moreso than any other program/war.

3 - It has undermined US credibility.

Vietnam and Watergate did that.

4 - It has destabilised the region.

The First Persian Gulf War as well as the Iran-Iraq War and let us not forget the numerous other meddling that various nations did in the region have done far more than we have.

5 - It has made Iran that much harder to reason with.

They've been difficult to deal with since 1979. Now it looks like they are supporting the terrorists inside Iraq if what the intel is saying is true and we all know how reliable Intelligence can be.

6 - It has increased support for the extreme Islamist movement.

Afghanistan did that as well.

7 - It has distracted minds, money and military from Afghanistan which was a legitimate agreed upon enterprise and undermined the credibility of that operation.

And yet, we are still doing alot in Afghanistan.

"clusterfuck" is the expression, I think.

I agree with you. The Middle East has been a clusterfuck since the colonization days of the 1800s.

I'm afraid I'm not liking this as much as my American counterparts.

All Channel Nine is gonna have to do is put a "Democrat Presidential Candidate disses Aussie diggers" headline on it, and that'll be it.

Should put the qualifer Aide infront of the word disses.

World War 2 cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, thousands of Americans.
"My pants are too tight, I think I need a bigger size."
"Bozos shoes were too big, but he kept wearing them."
That is the level of similarity between what he said and what you said.

I'm afraid I'm not liking this as much as my American counterparts.

All Channel Nine is gonna have to do is put a "Democrat Presidential Candidate disses Aussie diggers" headline on it, and that'll be it.

Well if my fellow Australians are dumb enough to lap that up...

3 - It has undermined US credibility.
Vietnam and Watergate did that.
Iraq and Bush's administration picked up where those left off.

Iraq and Bush's administration picked up where those left off.

We can go back further if ya like but meh...what's the point? Every American President since the 1950s has undermined American Credibility.

Should put the qualifer Aide infront of the word disses.
That would be journalism, and they don't deal in that sort of thing anymore.

Well if my fellow Australians are dumb enough to lap that up...
Trust me, the Channel Nine audience probably is. :p

Well it only took, what, about 48hrs for Obama to show that he is completely unfit for the executive office.

Nice one.

Trust me, the Channel Nine audience probably is. :p

by the time news is on all stations i be a sleep so i miss out on all the bullshit

Well it only took, what, about 48hrs for Obama to show that he is completely unfit for the executive office.

Nice one.

You're shitting me, right? If anything, this made him look better.

World War 2 cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, thousands of Americans.



The New Deal and World War II put us in debt moreso than any other program/war.



Vietnam and Watergate did that.



The First Persian Gulf War as well as the Iran-Iraq War and let us not forget the numerous other meddling that various nations did in the region have done far more than we have.



They've been difficult to deal with since 1979. Now it looks like they are supporting the terrorists inside Iraq if what the intel is saying is true and we all know how reliable Intelligence can be.



Afghanistan did that as well.



And yet, we are still doing alot in Afghanistan.



I agree with you. The Middle East has been a clusterfuck since the colonization days of the 1800s.

Those don't justify the war. They just prove that we've done stuff like this before... which is a "No Duh" statement.

Well it only took, what, about 48hrs for Obama to show that he is completely unfit for the executive office.

Nice one.

Yeah sure, for morons that obviously wern't going to vote for him in the first place.

You're shitting me, right? If anything, this made him look better.

You don't run for office in foreign countries and score domestic points against allies. (Well not if you want to go and claim that the US is still primus inter pares at least. If he follows up with a statement that the US under his administration is just going to be another country and ditch the whole leader of the free world deal and become isolationist, then fair enough. But if he doesn't he has no business commeting on the participants in foreign election, what if the wrong person wins, eh?).

Frankly it shows a lack of sophistication about the rest of the world which rivals the clinton's or bush jr. I think we've had enough of that, don't you?

Frankly it shows a lack of sophistication about the rest of the world which rivals the clinton's or bush jr. I think we've had enough of that, don't you?
Dude, Howard started it. He did the same thing back when Kerry came out. He basically yelled across the pond that Obama is helping the terrorists.

Actually, even dubya has the wit not to get himself involved in petty foreign domestic squabbles of this sort.

Really, the US's reputation is already low enough without presidential canididates weighing in.

Dude, Howard started it. He did the same thing back when Kerry came out. He basically yelled across the pond that Obama is helping the terrorists.

Which is fair enough because of the power disparity. Australia doesn't claim to be leader of the so called free world. If the US wants to continue the fiction that it has a place of primacy amongst the western democracies, it's leadership needs to be above this, for obvious reasons.

Actually, even dubya has the wit not to get himself involved in petty foreign domestic squabbles of this sort.

Really, the US's reputation is already low enough without presidential canididates weighing in.

I have to disagree, simply because this is an egregious sort of insult. You don't let that sort of intellectual dishonesty pass. After all, as I noted in a reply to whatever Corny is calling himself these days, Howard's comments are more appropriately directed at the Bush administration, assuming you want to make that kind of facetious argument. Obama's response was not only appropriate, it was necessary in my opinion.

Actually, even dubya has the wit not to get himself involved in petty foreign domestic squabbles of this sort.
Actually, there was quite a big outcry when during the last Aussie election Dubya yelled his heartfelt support for Johnny across the Pacific. Howard was lucky he survived those few days.

I didn't see anything where Howard stated that the dems, most notably Obama, supported terrorism. I see a statement that said that timelines will help terrorists more than hurt them. Now tell me how that equals labeling the Democratic Party terrorist supports?
Helping terrorists more than hurting them sounds like support to me. In which case Howard is as usual lying.

World War 2 cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, thousands of Americans.

The New Deal and World War II put us in debt moreso than any other program/war.



Vietnam and Watergate did that.



The First Persian Gulf War as well as the Iran-Iraq War and let us not forget the numerous other meddling that various nations did in the region have done far more than we have.



They've been difficult to deal with since 1979. Now it looks like they are supporting the terrorists inside Iraq if what the intel is saying is true and we all know how reliable Intelligence can be.



Afghanistan did that as well.



And yet, we are still doing alot in Afghanistan.



I agree with you. The Middle East has been a clusterfuck since the colonization days of the 1800s.
You cannot be serious.

We can go back further if ya like but meh...what's the point? Every American President since the 1950s has undermined American Credibility.
Except JFK, Clinton and arguably Reagan.

I have to disagree, simply because this is an egregious sort of insult. You don't let that sort of intellectual dishonesty pass. After all, as I noted in a reply to whatever Corny is calling himself these days, Howard's comments are more appropriately directed at the Bush administration, assuming you want to make that kind of facetious argument. Obama's response was not only appropriate, it was necessary in my opinion.

I don't believe it was australia that dragged the US into iraq. They get to comment because the US has used its position of primacy to drag a whole bunch of countries into its war on terror. If their candidates want to bitch about a sudden US volte-face then that is fair enough.

It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about diplomacy.

But whatever, maybe if obama's team tries really hard it can piss of the japanese and chinese too before the election.

Actually, there was quite a big outcry when during the last Aussie election Dubya yelled his heartfelt support for Johnny across the Pacific. Howard was lucky he survived those few days.

Bush said that Howard should win the election?

Well I'm not surprised. So I withdraw my comment about bush. He's witless too.

Stay out of foreign elections. That really should be the watchword here.

I have to disagree, simply because this is an egregious sort of insult. You don't let that sort of intellectual dishonesty pass. After all, as I noted in a reply to whatever Corny is calling himself these days, Howard's comments are more appropriately directed at the Bush administration, assuming you want to make that kind of facetious argument. Obama's response was not only appropriate, it was necessary in my opinion.Are you referring to this ?
"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."Then I have to say, that's utter crap. To call on another country to put more men into a war that was begun for the personal agenda of a lunatic US president is something so arrogant he should be slapped in the face for. The right thing to do rather would be to get non-US troops out of Iraq and let the US alone pay in blood for their folly and superiority complex.

I don't believe it was australia that dragged the US into iraq.
Nor was it the other way around. Note that the majority of the planet said they wouldn't play ball - Australia could've done the same. But Howard was so head over heels about bringing democracy to Iraq that he was always gonna send some Australian kids there too.

Not only that, but he had plenty of opportunities to leave. It's not like the troops are really needed, and Spain, Italy et al have demonstrated how to do it. But he's staying there, purely for politics.

I don't believe it was australia that dragged the US into iraq. They get to comment because the US has used its position of primacy to drag a whole bunch of countries into its war on terror. If their candidates want to bitch about a sudden US volte-face then that is fair enough.

It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about diplomacy.

But whatever, maybe if obama's team tries really hard it can piss of the japanese and chinese too before the election.

But Howard wasn't bitching about a change in US policy. He was suggesting that terrorists would rather have Democrats in power because it will aid their cause. In essence, he was saying that Democrats are pro-terrorist. If Democrats don't respond forcefully to that sort of insinuation, then they allow it to stand. Howard broke the rules of diplomacy when he made that statement, because he wasn't criticizing a policy--he was criticizing the members of a party. Obama's aide's retort was accurate and on the mark.

Are you referring to this ?
Then I have to say, that's utter crap. To call on another country to put more men into a war that was begun for the personal agenda of a lunatic US president is something so arrogant he should be slapped in the face for. The right thing to do rather would be to get non-US troops out of Iraq and let the US alone pay in blood for their folly and superiority complex.

Yes I am, and it's not crap. Howard was talking shit, and he had the shit thrown back in his face. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Yes I am, and it's not crap. Howard was talking shit, and he had the shit thrown back in his face. What's so difficult to understand about that?

It's international politics, not two 15-year-olds in a parking lot outside a Korn concert.

It's international politics, not two 15-year-olds in a parking lot outside a Korn concert.
Then tell Howard to act his age. :confused:

Then tell Howard to act his age. :confused:

Yup, I think both of them are acting stupid, admittedly Obama's aides are more justified in acting stupid...

I'm tired of the little insults. Its all I hear anymore. Its stupid. Hence why I blew up. I'm tired of it.

Random little thought.

If everywhere you go on the fourm people insult you...maybe it's you.

and arguably Reagan.

I'd argue that.

It's international politics, not two 15-year-olds in a parking lot outside a Korn concert.

Yeah, and the stakes are too high for Howard to be pulling this kind of shit in hopes of getting a local bump in the polls. International politics is not for the mild-mannered, after all.

That would be journalism, and they don't deal in that sort of thing anymore.

That is indeed true.

Those don't justify the war. They just prove that we've done stuff like this before... which is a "No Duh" statement.

Exactly. That was my whole point of posting what I did. To say that Bush and co. is to blame for it is idiotic.

Helping terrorists more than hurting them sounds like support to me. In which case Howard is as usual lying.

hehe. That'll be difficult to prove as it has not yet happened.

You cannot be serious.

About?

Except JFK, Clinton and arguably Reagan.

Well it depends in regards to JFK. Clinton I can make a case for and I would not have added Reagan to that list.

Yes I am, and it's not crap. Howard was talking shit, and he had the shit thrown back in his face. What's so difficult to understand about that?It's both shit, you know. No US presidential hope should try to patronize a foreigner about anything concerning Iraq. Because that's something the US is responsible for and should be punished for accordingly. Every dead US soldier is very well deserved. From the looks of things, the price in lost lives is not yet high enough to change the US's stupid policies.

It's international politics, not two 15-year-olds in a parking lot outside a Korn concert.

Hear Hear

Then tell Howard to act his age. :confused:

And the rest of the politicians while we're at it.

Random little thought.

If everywhere you go on the fourm people insult you...maybe it's you.

Did I say it was purely at me? No I did not. I'm tired of them in general.

International politics is not for the mild-mannered, after all.

That is indeed true.

It's both shit, you know. No US presidential hope should try to patronize a foreigner about anything concerning Iraq. Because that's something the US is responsible for and should be punished for accordingly. Every dead US soldier is very well deserved. From the looks of things, the price in lost lives is not yet high enough to change the US's stupid policies.

I would not go there about the deaths of american soldiers being deserved if I were you UB.

But Howard wasn't bitching about a change in US policy. He was suggesting that terrorists would rather have Democrats in power because it will aid their cause. In essence, he was saying that Democrats are pro-terrorist. If Democrats don't respond forcefully to that sort of insinuation, then they allow it to stand. Howard broke the rules of diplomacy when he made that statement, because he wasn't criticizing a policy--he was criticizing the members of a party. Obama's aide's retort was accurate and on the mark.

The US dragged other countries into its foreign expedition into iraq. And the imbalance of power of the US compared to allies indicates that they did not quite have the free vote everyone thinks they had.

The leaders of those nations have every right to expect consitency in US policy. The democrats have already stated that their policy will be different so it's fair enough to bitch about them if you, as a foreign leader, have invested your political capital on supporting the 'dubya' policy.

If obama doesn't get this - or democrats in general - then they shouldn't be in power.

Frankly, it's not about letting things stand. Whatever australians may or may not think has nothing to do with the outcome of the presidential elections - and you know it! But making noise about foreign leaders potentially causes problems down the road and shows poor judgment. Because like I said, it's not like the US doesn't already have a reputation for being utterly untrustworthy.

Is it too much for allies to expect constitency in foriegn policy? Or have we reached the point that the only thing that matters in the whole world is protecting the integrity of our chosen parties reputation against anyone who insults it?

In any case, it's a moot point. He's put himself out of contention by doing this.

International politics is not for the mild-mannered, after all.

Oh really?

Well lets hear Obama condemn china for tibet, or its policy on homsexuals while he's weighing in on domestic politics in foreign countries.

In any case, it's a moot point. He's put himself out of contention by doing this.

If I call you a supporter of terrorism, what are you going to do?

a) Put yourself out of contention

or

b) Put yourself out of contention, you terrorist supporter.

Answer quick! :)

The US dragged other countries into its foreign expedition into iraq. And the imbalance of power of the US compared to allies indicates that they did not quite have the free vote everyone thinks they had.

The leaders of those nations have every right to expect consitency in US policy. The democrats have already stated that their policy will be different so it's fair enough to bitch about them if you, as a foreign leader, have invested your political capital on supporting the 'dubya' policy.

If obama doesn't get this - or democrats in general - then they shouldn't be in power.

Frankly, it's not about letting things stand. Whatever australians may or may not think has nothing to do with the outcome of the presidential elections - and you know it! But making noise about foreign leaders potentially causes problems down the road and shows poor judgment. Because like I said, it's not like the US doesn't already have a reputation for being utterly untrustworthy.

Is it too much for allies to expect constitency in foriegn policy? Or have we reached the point that the only thing that matters in the whole world is protecting the integrity of our chosen parties reputation against anyone who insults it?

In any case, it's a moot point. He's put himself out of contention by doing this.


Consistancy for the sake of pleasing allies should always, ALWAYS come secondary to the best interests of the nation at hand.

Oh really?

Well lets hear Obama condemn china for tibet, or its policy on homsexuals while he's weighing in on domestic politics in foreign countries.

I'm not sure how Obama's aide is Obama.

In any case, it's a moot point. He's put himself out of contention by doing this.
Only for illiterate people who wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

The leaders of those nations have every right to expect consitency in US policy. The democrats have already stated that their policy will be different so it's fair enough to bitch about them if you, as a foreign leader, have invested your political capital on supporting the 'dubya' policy.

If obama doesn't get this - or democrats in general - then they shouldn't be in power.
If this doesn't support what I said, nothing does.
"Keep doing stupid shit for the sake of doing stupid shit, or you support terrorism!"
Good way to keep us in fucking retarded situations, ie Iraq, indefinitely.

In any case, it's a moot point. He's put himself out of contention by doing this.

Only in the minds of those who were going to oppose him anyway. I'm busy applauding Obama's staffers for telling Howard where he could shove his opinion. If he doesn't want to be told off for being a hypocrite, maybe he had better not try to interfere in an election that is none of his damn business.

Consistancy for the sake of pleasing allies should always, ALWAYS come secondary to the best interests of the nation at hand.Which would be Iraq, wouldn't it?

And the imbalance of power of the US compared to allies indicates that they did not quite have the free vote everyone thinks they had.
Yes, because of course such powerful nations like New Zealand could decline, but the meak puppet of Australia had no choice.

Whatever australians may or may not think has nothing to do with the outcome of the presidential elections - and you know it! But making noise about foreign leaders potentially causes problems down the road and shows poor judgment.
John Howard started this fight! The future problems down the road are already here, because Johnny doesn't like people who don't think like him. Bush thinks like him, so they get along. Obama doesn't think like him, so there'll be bitching.

There is absolutely nothing Obama or the Dems can do to make Howard like them. Not even just sitting back and letting Johnny try and give the Republicans a bit of political capital to play with.

Howard's just bitter 'cause he knows Bush ain't gunna be stickin around that much longer.
Nah, Howeird's bitter cause he's been enjoying the taste of Bush's taint for 6 years now, and he knows a Dem won't want him hanging off their dangleberries as much as the Bushbaby has.
The poor guy's gonna have no-one to suck up to soon.


This all smacks of the little guy in the corner everyone ignores yelling, "look at me! Look at me, everybody! lookatmelookatmelookatmelookatme!
...
..
.
please?"

Which would be Iraq, wouldn't it?

no, the United States. the US should only adhere to policy consistantly soley for the purposes of appeasing allies when the US is not harmed by that adherance.

I'm frankly kind of sick of people trying to use past mistakes to justify present ones. Saying that we screwed up in Vietnam, or with the New Deal, or with Manifest Destiny, or any of those things, means it's acceptable to screw up with Iraq, too, is clearly wrong. It just shows that we are incapable of learning from our own mistakes.

Anyway, I'm not sure about the nuances of Australian politics (although I've heard that the Liberal party is conservative, or something like that) but I do know that John Howard is not exactly the model of popularity or sensible leadership, sort of like his friend Bush. I wonder if the same thing might happen to him, where the/a rival party will sweep the next elections and leave his political agenda trampled in the dust.

no, the United States. the US should only adhere to policy consistantly soley for the purposes of appeasing allies when the US is not harmed by that adherance.But what if the US is harming others? You don't care, I suppose? I wish you were sent to Iraq.

But what if the US is harming others? You don't care, I suppose? I wish you were sent to Iraq.

What if another country was hurting Iraq and not the United States?

In any case, it's a moot point. He's put himself out of contention by doing this.

You're fooling yourself if you really think that. If anything, this has strengthened his position among the Democrats.

But what if the US is harming others? You don't care, I suppose? I wish you were sent to Iraq.

To what harm and what interest does that harm serve? I'm quite sure America harmed Germany in world war II, it doesn't mean it wasn't the best choice.

The most important thing for america is american interests, period.

Conversly, the most important thing for austrial is australian interests. British and british interests, etc etc.

Alliances are matters of interest. Alliance exists when it is in the nation's best interest to do so. America should not be obligated to "stay the course" simply because an ally wants us to, unless either:

1) doing so was in America's best interests
2) maintaining the alliance was in america's best interest.

If doing what an ally wants us to do, when it is in the best interest to keep the alliance, then we should do so.

If we want to do something, and an ally wants us not to, and it is better for america to do so than keep the alliance, then fuck the ally.

And that applies for all things, and for all nations.

Now answer me one quick question. When did I ever say the Iraq war was in the best interests of the united states?

To what harm and what interest does that harm serve? I'm quite sure America harmed Germany in world war II, it doesn't mean it wasn't the best choice.

The most important thing for america is american interests, period.

Conversly, the most important thing for austrial is australian interests. British and british interests, etc etc.

Alliances are matters of interest. Alliance exists when it is in the nation's best interest to do so. America should not be obligated to "stay the course" simply because an ally wants us to, unless either:

1) doing so was in America's best interests
2) maintaining the alliance was in america's best interest.

If doing what an ally wants us to do, when it is in the best interest to keep the alliance, then we should do so.

If we want to do something, and an ally wants us not to, and it is better for america to do so than keep the alliance, then fuck the ally.

And that applies for all things, and for all nations.

Now answer me one quick question. When did I ever say the Iraq war was in the best interests of the united states?You are a nationalist moron.

You are a nationalist moron.

oh really?

What exactly have I said that is false? The primary interest of a nation is to benefit that nation.

That's it, that's the #1 concern. The goal of the american government is to improve america. The goal of the british government is to improve britain.

It is not the goal of the american government to give one big flying fuck about britain, unless improving britain improves america.

That's how nations work.

You are a nationalist moron.

And you are a child hiding behind a computer screen.

oh really?

What exactly have I said that is false? The primary interest of a nation is to benefit that nation.

That's it, that's the #1 concern. The goal of the american government is to improve america. The goal of the british government is to improve britain.

It is not the goal of the american government to give one big flying fuck about britain, unless improving britain improves america.

That's how nations work.

Hear Hear!

Hear Hear!

We agree that the #1 principle of the american goverment is to look after the best interests of america.

We disagree as to what action in Iraq is in that best interest.

oh really?

What exactly have I said that is false? The primary interest of a nation is to benefit that nation.

That's it, that's the #1 concern. The goal of the american government is to improve america. The goal of the british government is to improve britain.

It is not the goal of the american government to give one big flying fuck about britain, unless improving britain improves america.

That's how nations work.We are not living in nations anymore, it's become one world. The old days are over. If the US does anything that impacts the world outside their borders, it is imperative to consider that impact before putting anything into action. And if you don't care what exists beyond your borders, you are a nationalist.
The US have deliberately brought destruction and death to Iraq. And I just don't care whether that was in any US "interest" or not.

We agree that the #1 principle of the american goverment is to look after the best interests of america.

We disagree as to what action in Iraq is in that best interest.

I'll agree to that.

And you are a child hiding behind a computer screen.

Using criticism that can easily be applied to yourself makes you look like an idiot and a hypocrite you know...

We are not living in nations anymore, it's become one world. "

:D

Yeah... Right. Sure.

*falls over laughing*

So you and your fortunate 1st world brethren are going to give up money so that you can level off the income inequality between nations?

We are not living in nations anymore, it's become one world.

My passport says differently.

You fail.

The old days are over. If the US does anything that impacts the world outside its borders, it is imperative to consider that impact.

Imperative, for whom? Why?

We are not living in nations anymore, it's become one world. The old days are over.

Boy ain't this such a childish statement? If we live in one world then why the hell don't we start behaving like it is? Oh yea, because most nations still see themselves first. Shall I point to the orient as prime example of that? Or how about the middle east? Another prime example of that. The old days are not over by a lon shot. Let us not forget the break up of Bosnia.

If the US does anything that impacts the world outside its borders, it is imperative to consider that impact.

Ya know what? I actually agree with this statement. To bad other nations don't give a damn if we do or not. They'll do whatever they want. Look at China.

The US have deliberately brought destruction and death to Iraq. And I just don't care whether that was in any US "interest".

Deliberate eh? Seems to me you do not understand international politics as well as you think you do my very young padawan learner.

Using criticism that can easily be applied to yourself makes you look like an idiot and a hypocrite you know...

At least I fessed up that I blew up and admitted that I blew up.

my very young padawan learner.

Oh, knock off the creepy paternalistic angle, it doesn't suit you.

You are a nationalist moron.

I'm afraid I don't see how that is, in any way, an extreme or inordinate amount of nationalism. To suggest that the first concern of a nation should be the well being of all nations is like suggesting that a man should put the well-being of his fellow men before his own...oh...wait...crap :)

My passport says differently.So your passports keeps your county's policies and lifestyle from impacting the world around it?
Imperative, for whom? Why?If you don't understand that, you are not only are a nationalist, but also an egomaniac. It's imperative for your government, but also for your people at the ballots.

Deliberate eh? Seems to me you do not understand international politics as well as you think you do my very young padawan learner.

Are you denying that we entered into the Iraq War with the intent of toppling an existing regime and placing one more suitable to our desires as a nation?

Also, the ad hominem is getting a little dull, wouldn't you say?

At least I fessed up that I blew up and admitted that I blew up.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about you attacking everyone as "Just someone on the internet" or "Just someone on a computer". Its like saying someone else's argument is fallacious because they're a human, not only is it an ad hominum, its totally hypocritical.

So your passports keeps your county's policies and lifestyle from impacting the world around it?

You forgot the r in country. Counties do not have passports nor IDs silly :D besides, that is not what he is saying at all. I love your twisted logic.

If you don't understand that, you are not only are a nationalist, but also an egomaniac.

*holds up a mirror*

I see you are talking about yourself here.

So your passports keeps your county's policies and lifestyle from impacting the world around it?

My passport demonstrates quite well that we are not living "without nations" in a "one world" as you claim.

Do try to keep up with your own arguments. I know they're pretty stupid but that's no excuse for even you to lose track of them.

If you don't understand that, you are not only are a nationalist, but also an egomaniac.

So...you can't answer it then?

Gotcha. Next time please make arguments you are prepared to back up.

Are you denying that we entered into the Iraq War with the intent of toppling an existing regime and placing one more suitable to our desires as a nation?

I wouldn't go as far to say more suitable but no I am not denying that we went into Iraq to oust a terrorist who has not 100% fully cooperated with the United Nations in complete violation of its resolutions. However, I'm not going to start on that.

Also, the ad hominem is getting a little dull, wouldn't you say?

Since I've debated him often enough, it becomes obvious that he is a child.

My passport demonstrates quite well that we are not living "without nations" in a "one world" as you claim.

Do try to keep up with your own arguments. I know they're pretty stupid but that's no excuse for even you to lose track of them.

LMAO!!! He has a habit of doing that.

So...you can't answer it then?

Gotcha. Next time please make arguments you are prepared to back up.

He does not know how to.

Also, the ad hominem is getting a little dull, wouldn't you say?
Since I've debated him often enough, it becomes obvious that he is a child.

So you answer a request to stop using unsound ad hominem arguments with an ad hominem argument. Who's the child here?

My passport demonstrates quite well that we are not living "without nations" in a "one world" as you claim.

Do try to keep up with your own arguments. I know they're pretty stupid but that's no excuse for even you to lose track of them.You fail. National borders are not limits of responsibility. And that's what we are talking about. The US ruined another country, yet you claim that if it's not in the US interest that does not matter at all. You should be sent to Iraq indeed.

So...you can't answer it then?
Gotcha. Next time please make arguments you are prepared to back up.You fail. See above.

So you answer a request to stop using unsound ad hominem arguments with an ad hominem argument. Who's the child here?

Oh relax would you? I've debated him enough times to know he is not all he wants you all to think. :D His debates in regards to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a case in point.

You fail. National borders are not limits of responsibility. And that's what we are talking about. The US ruined another country, yet you claim that if it's not in the US interest that does not matter at all. You should be sent to Iraq indeed.

Once again, matter, to whom?

Once again, matter, to whom?To the US population. And you. But the US population is not all that counts when it comes to destroying other countries.

To the US population. And you. But the US population is not all that counts when it comes to destroying other countries.

if it's not in the American interest than why does it matter to america more than things that are in america's interest??

And if you think I'm some hyper nationalist flag waiver, I can change it around.

If it's not in the Saudi Arabian interest than why does it matter to Saudi Arabia more than things that are in Saudi Arabia's interest?

Substitute for whatever nation you wish.

You saying so doesn't make it true.

if it's not in the American interest than why does it matter to america more than things that are in america's interest??

And if you think I'm some hyper nationalist flag waiver, I can change it around.

If it's not in the Saudi Arabian interest than why does it matter to Saudi Arabia more than things that are in Saudi Arabia's interest?

Substitute for whatever nation you wish.

You saying so doesn't make it true.You changed nothing around.
And btw, Saudi Arabia didn't invade Iraq and created a total mess of the country. It was the US, that's why it's the US's responsibility. But I don't suppose you know what that word means. You are a nationalist.

Everyone seems to be viewing this as Howard meddling in the politics of a foreign nation (albeit politics that will directly affect Australia), and then got easily outmanoeuvre by an aide.

This seems to ignore the cunning politician that Howard has proved to be after winning four successive elections and poised for a fifth, who normally anticipates enemy counterattacks before they happen.

The only candidate Howard has attacked is Obama; despite Clinton making a similar pledge.

The American Presidential election isn't for another 1.5 years; the Australian election is probably within the year, possibly in June-July.

The Australian military is stretched to breaking points, with reserves being called up to serve in South East Asia. Meanwhile, Obama's aide calls for greater commitment from Australia in Iraq (albeit rhetorically) as Obama threatens to unilaterally change Australia’s policy in Iraq.

I suspect this is about internal Australian politics, not American politics; and Howard sees the potential for political gain.

You changed nothing around.
And btw, Saudi Arabia didn't invade Iraq and created a total mess of the country. It was the US, that's why it's the US's responsibility. But I don't suppose you know what that word means. You are a nationalist.

Your reading comprehension seems to suck, so it's not too surprising I have to repeat my question.

But since you missed it (really, not that surprised) the first time, let me repeat it again, just for you. I'll type it slow so you catch it all, just try not to get distracted half way through.

When...did...I...ever...say...the...Iraq...war...was...in...the...best...interests...of...the...unit ed...states?

You changed nothing around.
And btw, Saudi Arabia didn't invade Iraq and created a total mess of the country. It was the US, that's why it's the US's responsibility. But I don't suppose you know what that word means. You are a nationalist.

And this proves that simple questions goes over UB's head. You are quick to point the nationalist finger but yet you cannot answer a simple question about interest.

Here's a good example to you. It deals with business. Businesses look out for themselves but sometimes they merge or make deals. Let us look at the deal aspect. Why do businesses make deals with one another? Because it is in their interest to do so.

It is the same on the political side too. Nations enter into treaties because it is in their interest to enter into treaties. If it is not in their interest, they do not enter into said treaty.

Are you following?

Your reading comprehension seems to suck, so it's not too surprising I have to repeat my question.

But since you missed it (really, not that surprised) the first time, let me repeat it again, just for you. I'll type it slow so you catch it all, just try not to get distracted half way through.

When...did...I...ever...say...the...Iraq...war...was...in...the...best...interests...of...the...unit ed...states?

Careful, at th rate you are going, you might be labeled an anti-semite :D

Careful, at th rate you are going, you might be labeled an anti-semite :D

I must be one of them self hatin' jews.

I must be one of them self hatin' jews.

Yep you must be though he thinks anyone who supports the Iraq War loves to see Arabs getting killed and thus labels them an anti-semite. Samething when it comes to Israel.

Yep you must be though he thinks anyone who supports the Iraq War loves to see Arabs getting killed and thus labels them an anti-semite. Samething when it comes to Israel.

now don't say I necessarily support the Iraq war. I did support the war when I believed there may have been ties to al qaeda or a legitimate threat to the US, I don't really support it now.

now don't say I necessarily support the Iraq war. I did support the war when I believed there may have been ties to al qaeda or a legitimate threat to the US, I don't really support it now.

Oh I know. However, he has not gotten the messege that you don't necessarily support it. Frankly, I agree with what you are saying. It is well thought out.

Damn, I was hoping that he actually did slap him across the face. Preferably with video footage. That would definitely make me vote for Obama.

Also, Howard's retarded, fascist bullshit reminds me of the chancellor dude from V for Vendetta.

In case you've just joined us, and want to know what's been happening in this thread, the last few pages can be summarised as follows:
Oh, Allegheny County 2 I agree with you and think you're wonderful
No, Arthais101 I agree with you and think you're wonderful
No, Allegheny County 2 you're wonderful for agreeing with me
No, Arthais101 you're wonderful for agreeing with me
Oh, Allegheny County 2 isn't it wonderful how we both agree?
Oh, Arthais101 you're so wonderful
etc etc etc

Tell me: can anyone join in this bout of reach-arounds or is it a closed circle (jerk)?

Please, someone get them a Belgium Biscuit!
And inform Fass!

As an Australian I would just like to say that this fool who some how usurped power in our country does not represent our true opinions and the like with what he says.

Anybody see Rudd on Sky News this morning? The man is a hero. Neilsen polls also have him as having the highest approval rating of a Labor leader (even Hawke) since they started doing polls in '75 or so. Go son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd

I don't know if I'll vote Labor, but I certainly am not voting 'Liberal (Conservative)'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd

Was at Rudd's wiki last night reading the discussion page about getting a good picture lol.

I don't know if I'll vote Labor, but I certainly am not voting 'Liberal (Conservative)'.

What electorate are you in? I was thinking about this recently and it seems to me that unless the independent, Dem, or Green candidate that you want to vote for has a chance of winning then you might as well give your full support to the ALP to ensure that have the best chance of getting the Libs/Nats out of power. They will still get the preferences, after all. But then again if you really want a third party that will ever rival the big two they need as many real votes as possible to slowly build up popularity and eventually winning the electorate. Such a sad paradox.

Was at Rudd's wiki last night reading the discussion page about getting a good picture lol.



What electorate are you in? I was thinking about this recently and it seems to me that unless the independent, Dem, or Green candidate that you want to vote for has a chance of winning then you might as well give your full support to the ALP to ensure that have the best chance of getting the Libs/Nats out of power. They will still get the preferences, after all. But then again if you really want a third party that will ever rival the big two they need as many real votes as possible to slowly build up popularity and eventually winning the electorate. Such a sad paradox.

I am Tasmanian in the Federal/State Electoral. Division of Dennison.

I am a socialist so I like to only vote for parties or independents that espouse at least something similar to my ideology. In state elections I have always given Labor my preferences above Liberal, and I usually vote for the Socialist Alliance and Greens first.

The thing is, I am rather disillusioned with the Labor party in my state, with so many corporate corruption and the like scandals, and has had the effect of somewhat radicalizing my vote. I don't really like the Greens because I think the environment is not a good enough argument for socialism, and that they have defined themselves essentially as hippies when issues of social justice and welfare are far more relevant, especially with the health issues in my state.

But in the face of the Liberals in my state (horrible prospect imho) I would definitely vote Labor. I think maybe with all Labor states and a Labor Federal government we could get some really good uniform social policy throughout the country.

This is all moot.

Sure Obama can make all the fuss wants, but look at the carry trade. His noisome meddling in another nation's politics rules him out as a real candidate.

Bankrupt people don't get all that much choice about who runs their country.

The thing is, I am rather disillusioned with the Labor party in my state, with so many corporate corruption and the like scandals

Really? We only hear about Tasmania... well, never really. What sort of corruption? High up?

This is all moot.

Sure Obama can make all the fuss wants, but look at the carry trade. His noisome meddling in another nation's politics rules him out as a real candidate.

Bankrupt people don't get all that much choice about who runs their country.

You keep saying that, but I suspect you're hoping more than anything else that Obama is finished as a result. The reaction online has been nothing but positive for Obama, however, and even if it weren't, this furor is a minor one that won't last. Nobody will even remember it in two weeks.

You're fooling yourself if you really think that. If anything, this has strengthened his position among the Democrats.

I got 1.5 trillion dollars overseas that says they don't want a mouthy git as president.

He's fucked himself. No one cares about the base anymore. We are living in the global economy. In the future american presidents will do what they are damn well told and like it. Obama obviously doesn't get that, so he's out of the race as of now.

Really? We only hear about Tasmania... well, never really. What sort of corruption? High up?

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1773692.htm

I got 1.5 trillion dollars overseas that says they don't want a mouthy git as president.

He's fucked himself. No one cares about the base anymore. We are living in the global economy. In the future american presidents will do what they are damn well told and like it. Obama obviously doesn't get that, so he's out of the race as of now.

Ah. I don't think we're there yet. Fortunately, we'll get to watch this unfold over the next year to fifteen months.

You keep saying that, but I suspect you're hoping more than anything else that Obama is finished as a result. The reaction online has been nothing but positive for Obama, however, and even if it weren't, this furor is a minor one that won't last. Nobody will even remember it in two weeks.

Personally, I would like to see Dennis Kucinich as the next president. He seems to have a vague acquaintance with reality. But it will never happen.:(

Personally, I would like to see Dennis Kucinich as the next president. He seems to have a vague acquaintance with reality. But it will never happen.:(
Kucinich has a better shot at winning the bronze in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics than he does of being President for stronger reasons than the ones you're hinting have cost Obama his shot this early. Pulling out of the WTO and NAFTA? They'll shoot his ass first.

Ah. I don't think we're there yet. Fortunately, we'll get to watch this unfold over the next year to fifteen months.

Well just go watch the spreads on the MBS (bonds that back mortgages). The US is singular in the fact that people here spend more than they earn and so rely on foreign largess to fund their lifestyle.

Japan, China, or the UK could crash the economy tommorrow if they wanted to.

Kucinich has a better shot at winning the bronze in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics than he does of being President for stronger reasons than the ones you're hinting have cost Obama his shot this early. Pulling out of the WTO and NAFTA? They'll shoot his ass first.

First off, Kucinich knows exactly how fucked the US is, so he's prepared to drop the princeps inter pares role that american presidents seem to think is their god given right.

Also, he's the only one who addresses the healthcare mess in this country,.

Well just go watch the spreads on the MBS (bonds that back mortgages). The US is singular in the fact that people here spend more than they earn and so rely on foreign largess to fund their lifestyle.

Japan, China, or the UK could crash the economy tommorrow if they wanted to.

Sure they could, but they'd destroy themselves in the process, and they don't want that.

I don't know if any Aussies here watched Parliament Question Time for the House of Reps today, but all the opposition (Rudd) wanted to talk about (literally he rephrased the question for reaction like 4 times) was Howard's comment about Obama. Howard basically said it was ok because Labor are always attacking Bush. lol.

First off, Kucinich knows exactly how fucked the US is, so he's prepared to drop the princeps inter pares role that american presidents seem to think is their god given right.

Also, he's the only one who addresses the healthcare mess in this country,.

Which is precisely why he has absolutely no shot at winning.

Sure they could, but they'd destroy themselves in the process, and they don't want that.

How would they destroy themselves? You mean they wouldn't get anymore pictures of paris hilton's underpants?

Really, no one cares. Washington state could become a wealthy country if it split off, the rest of the US is not, frankly, that important.

How would they destroy themselves? You mean they wouldn't get anymore pictures of paris hilton's underpants?

Really, no one cares. Washington state could become a wealthy country if it split off, the rest of the US is not, frankly, that important.

You're not actually suggesting that the UK could sink the US economy and not feel any sore effects from it in their own economy, are you? You're smarter than that.

Howard basically said it was ok because Labor are always attacking Bush. lol.
And that's precisely what happened.

Howard doesn't like Obama, so he bitches about him. He doesn't know or care about the difference between criticising another government's policies, and getting involved in a foreign election campaign.

Obama's aide was perfectly within his rights to ask the rhetorical question: "If Mr Howard cares so much for troops in Iraq, why doesn't he walk the walk?"

Unfortunately that's probably not how the media will portray it here.

I don't know if any Aussies here watched Parliament Question Time for the House of Reps today, but all the opposition (Rudd) wanted to talk about (literally he rephrased the question for reaction like 4 times) was Howard's comment about Obama. Howard basically said it was ok because Labor are always attacking Bush. lol.

Yeah saw some of that, then Howard's response to the censure motion on Sky News. The coalition went on forever trying to justify it by listing terrorist attacks, which is very unethical and irrelevant. He is trying to bamboozle you!

Which is precisely why he has absolutely no shot at winning.

I'd rather die for an noble cause.

Look, I'm pretty conservative, and he's my pick. Not Obama, not Clinton, not any of the others.

I think he is the best man for the job.

I don't care about winning. Isn't that why the dems chose herman munster last time? And how well did that turn out.

The man is a realist, and I like that. Plus, as my girlfriend says, anyone who grew up in a car 'gets it'. All the rest are just claiming to act in her name.

You're not actually suggesting that the UK could sink the US economy and not feel any sore effects from it in their own economy, are you? You're smarter than that.

Sure it would hurt them, but probably less so than it would hurt the US. Indeed, the last chatham house report basically indicated that the UK should stop supporting the US dollar and move towards the EU becuase the US cannot be relied upon as an ally.

And it's funny you mention it, because in January the UK put its interest rates up a day before a US government bond auction and it created quite a bit of panic. Yet there you go, the UK seems to still be doing quite well.

Howard sounds an awful lot like Dubya there, doesn't he?



I don't know how many Aussies are members here, but I'll take the common viewpoint: Howard is Bush's bitch.

Howard = owned. Obama is officially awesome.

I wish someone would actually have a slug at the bastard.

Howard is running for re-election and; "He is seeking a fifth term later this year, and recent polls suggest voters are increasingly unhappy about his refusal to set a deadline for withdrawing Australian troops from the Middle East." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251351,00.html So he may be gone before Bush is gone.
Despite my best hopes to the contrary, that's definitely only a "maybe". He still enjoys widespread support, and is a master at deflecting issues to less important ones (hence why he has been in power for over a decade). Iraq is mostly a non-issue when compared to the evil immigrants and the like.

I'm afraid I'm not liking this as much as my American counterparts.

All Channel Nine is gonna have to do is put a "Democrat Presidential Candidate disses Aussie diggers" headline on it, and that'll be it.

Mmmhm.

And then it'll be deflected to people who don't support the Iraq war, and then a connection will be made to the Labor party, who of course don't have our security at heart. Or something.

Sigh.

So grow the fuck up!

Corny, corny, corny, if that really is you, why don't you do a bit of that first and start pointing out the 'facts' that you seem to think Obama's aides missed hmmm?

Being the second biggest contributor of troops when the total amount is a drop in the bucket to begin with is hardly something to be proud of.

It's like saying "I'm helping fighting this towering inferno alright. By spitting on it." and being proud of it.

That's just pathetic.

I'm always happy to see John Howard put back in his box.

When...did...I...ever...say...the...Iraq...war...was...in...the...best...interests...of...the...unit ed...states?That is irrelevant. Your position is that your government should only consider what is in the interest of your country and ignore what impact those interests and the pursuit of those interests have on the rest of the world. And that is a highly sinister and indeed nationalist position.

That is irrelevant. Your position is that your government should only consider what is in the interest of your country and ignore what impact those interests and the pursuit of those interests have on the rest of the world. And that is a highly sinister and indeed nationalist position.

well to be fair that is what they are elected to do and if they want to keep power that is what they are going to have to do. In my country you think the Labour Government would stay in if they helped combat poverty at the cost of the British citizen?

I'm not saying its right I'm just saying thats how it works, shame but hey realism is here to stay

That is irrelevant.

It.is.very.relevent. You just cannot answer his question because he did not say that it was in our best interest.

Your position is that your government should only consider what is in the interest of your country and ignore what impact those interests and the pursuit of those interests have on the rest of the world. And that is a highly sinister and indeed nationalist position.

Yes government. Notice the word government. That does not mean that we as citizens agree with what our government does. That means we can disagree with them and state loud and on TV that it WAS NOT in our interest to do such and such. Are you understanding this or do you need some ESL lessons?

That is irrelevant. Your position is that your government should only consider what is in the interest of your country and ignore what impact those interests and the pursuit of those interests have on the rest of the world. And that is a highly sinister and indeed nationalist position.

I expect you to vote only for candidates that support providing over 50% of your income in aid to developing countries and the utter abolishment of social welfare programs. I expect you to vote only for candidates that support allowing western jobs to be exported overseas through total free trade. I expect you to vote only for candidates who want your armed forces evenly spread over the world and a draft so they can afford to send more. I expect you to vote only for candidates who are willing to accept the same censorship that the people of China take for granted as morally equal to the free exchange of ideas we celebrate.

World War 2 cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, thousands of Americans..

But was begun by an attack on America by Japan. You have a point?



The New Deal and World War II put us in debt moreso than any other program/war...

I said it was a financial black hole. Whether or not there is bigger or blacker is neither here nor there.



Vietnam and Watergate did that....

Though wrongheaded, stupid and short-sighted, there was a reason for the Vietnam war, and people either disagreed or agreed. In Iraq there was large and flagrant lie which has since been exposed as such.



The First Persian Gulf War as well as the Iran-Iraq War and let us not forget the numerous other meddling that various nations did in the region have done far more than we have.....

Post 1945?


They've been difficult to deal with since 1979. Now it looks like they are supporting the terrorists inside Iraq if what the intel is saying is true and we all know how reliable Intelligence can be......

Time will tell on that one, however having an American force on their border is hardly the way to reassure them of US intentions.



Afghanistan did that as well.......

Nowhere near the same extent.



And yet, we are still doing alot in Afghanistan........

Given a resurgent Taleban, perhaps not.

But was begun by an attack on America by Japan. You have a point?

*coughnotexactlycough*

*coughnotexactlycough*

The sanctions thingy?...arguable but a valid point.

*coughnotexactlycough*

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/dinaverg.jpg

Sorry Dinaverg - I just wanted to re-use that graphic...