Alison
Maybe we're politically on the other side of the fence from each other. As someone who considers himself left of centre, I have a problem with Thatcherism. I admit she did drag the Country out of the age of Nationalisation, but people suffered as a result. On ther other hand, because of her policy, I was able to buy my council house and I am now fairly secure on the property market now.
I did vote for Blair at his first election, but am more of a liberal. I greatly admired Liberal leaders like David Steel, Paddy Ashton and Charles Kennedy. However, I couldn't tell you who the leader of the Lib Dems is now, I was hoping after Ming Cambell resigned that Kennedy, after sorting out his personal problems might have been able to take on the leadership again.
The greatest ever post war Brit polititian for me was Mo Mowlam, who I think would be a great subject for a movie, as she fought a brain tumour while doing IMO a fantastic job as Secretary Of State For Northern Ireland. I don't like the way Blair and co treated her after her achievements. Remember her getting a standing ovation during his converence speech
When Margaret Thatcher was on the go, an another woman poilititian I admired more was Shirley Williams, who was one of four who resigned from the increasingly left wing Labour Party and set up The Social Democrat Party, who later merged with the Libs to form The Liberal Democrats
ENOUGH!!!
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
Chris
In the UK we've been more interested in your Presidential Election, more so from The Democrats than The Republicans. This is because you had an outstanding woman cadidate in Hilary Clinton, who eventually lost out to the black Barrack Obama. So what ever happened, assuming the Democrats won, history was going to made in The Whitehouse.
There is also a couple of observations. I get the impression to get elected as President, a man or woman must have a lot of money available. Whereas in the UK, the potential P.M needed be rich, it's the party that puts up the money. Also MPs are responsible for electing leaders for the partys, then at Election time it's the voters, who decide who they want at number 10
The second observation is time. In the U.S it feels like it's been a full yr since you've been gearing up to the day for when you vote for The President. In the UK the PM calls an Election and it's done and dusted in about three weeks
In the UK we've been more interested in your Presidential Election, more so from The Democrats than The Republicans. This is because you had an outstanding woman cadidate in Hilary Clinton, who eventually lost out to the black Barrack Obama. So what ever happened, assuming the Democrats won, history was going to made in The Whitehouse.
There is also a couple of observations. I get the impression to get elected as President, a man or woman must have a lot of money available. Whereas in the UK, the potential P.M needed be rich, it's the party that puts up the money. Also MPs are responsible for electing leaders for the partys, then at Election time it's the voters, who decide who they want at number 10
The second observation is time. In the U.S it feels like it's been a full yr since you've been gearing up to the day for when you vote for The President. In the UK the PM calls an Election and it's done and dusted in about three weeks
-
Mr. O'Brady
- Posts: 123
- Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 10:06 pm
Chris, you didn't quite get my point. I don't think any party (including the crazy Greens and the gun-loving, drugs-for-everyone Libertarians) offers anything even resembling ethics, common sense, or compassion. They may say they do, trying to be everything to everyone, but their legislation shows otherwise. Re-election and majority-party status is all that matters to any of them. The Democratic Congress will achieve no more with Obama than they did with Bush. And I'm just as afraid they'll screw up as badly (or worse) as the Republican Congress did with Bush.
So I'll just climb in my hole and watch some old movies rather than vote.
And Stuart, here in the states, our politicians spend most of their time raising money and campaigning rather than actually working. I'd love to see McCain and Obama return their hefty Senate paychecks for the last eighteen months, since neither has done much in Washington to earn them.
Pat
So I'll just climb in my hole and watch some old movies rather than vote.
And Stuart, here in the states, our politicians spend most of their time raising money and campaigning rather than actually working. I'd love to see McCain and Obama return their hefty Senate paychecks for the last eighteen months, since neither has done much in Washington to earn them.
Pat
One thing I find odd in America, is if The Republicans get in, it'll be with a totally new team. Now I admit it was the same over here when Tony Blair got in, but that was because The Labour Party hadn't been in Goverment for about 18 yrs and again if the Tory's get in the the next time, because it too has been out of power to long.
Connie Rice is the one member of the Bush administration still young enough to do another term or two of duty, plus the fact she'll have the experience none of the incoming Republicans will have. Admittedly, because of her association with Bush, maybe they wouldn't want her anywhere near a Goverment job.
Personally speaking, as a Liberal Brit, I hope the Democrats win, so that argument won't matter.
Connie Rice is the one member of the Bush administration still young enough to do another term or two of duty, plus the fact she'll have the experience none of the incoming Republicans will have. Admittedly, because of her association with Bush, maybe they wouldn't want her anywhere near a Goverment job.
Personally speaking, as a Liberal Brit, I hope the Democrats win, so that argument won't matter.
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Stuart I'd class myself as a liberal too, perhaps on a different wave length. To me Blair was all shine and completely lacking on substance. The only thing I feel they've achieved in the past 11 years is peace in Northern Ireland and that was on the cards anyway.
My major annoyance is that the Labour Government devolved power to the Bank of England, this meant that the Bank of England was it's own regulator. Since that happened banks have had free reign to lend whatever they want to however they feel like, no one was there to put the breaks on. The 'boom' of the British ecomony was created by lending, lending and more irresponsible lending and cheap Chinese imports.
To put this in perspective the price of the house I bought in 1996 went up threefold because of the ability for people to borrow more and more money. It used to be three times salary or two and a half times joint but this increased to ten times. What this means is that first time buyers have struggled to finance a home, ours was proced out of the market for them, even though when we bought Chris was at university.
The other great annoyance I have with this government is that there are layers upon layers of beaurocracy that we pay for that serve no purpose. Despite the money poured into the Health Service and Education there is no improvement. I've personally seen a marked decline. I had my children nearly three years apart, the difference was appalling. With Joe I was lucky enough to have him at a quiet time, if I'd have had him the day before I'd have given birth in the corridor. This from a first world country.
Then there is the nanny state telling us how to live our lives, feed our children, educate our children. etc. The people making up these rules have no children of their own.
Then there's our involvement in Iraq, it's less a question of whether it's what the people wanted to more a question that the information we were fed was manipulated, that's perhaps to light a word, untrue is perhaps better.
I suppose I'm quite old fashioned and I suspect that we are closer in ideaology than it sounds by my post Stuart. I did like Mo Mowlam as a person, I think she started to see through the shiny facade of the Labour Party.
One thing I will agree with you on is that I whole wanted Hillary to win. I know Obama carries a lot of support in America, we do just see clips and I can't claim to have seen many of his speeches. To me though he seems a little inexperienced, especially on the international stage. This might very well work in his favour. Hillary had the edge from what I can see, she had more gravitas. Hillary invokes strong feelings, perhaps she wouldn't go down with the public at large?
Something that was brought up on our news was, please correct me if I'm wrong Hillary won the states that are the traditional Democrat areas but Obama has won in the areas less likely to vote Democrat in the general election. If he can't swing Hillary's voters he will have a tough fight. Whereas if Hilary had have won she'd would have carried home those states and just needed to work on some of the more marginal states. I hope I make sense.
My major annoyance is that the Labour Government devolved power to the Bank of England, this meant that the Bank of England was it's own regulator. Since that happened banks have had free reign to lend whatever they want to however they feel like, no one was there to put the breaks on. The 'boom' of the British ecomony was created by lending, lending and more irresponsible lending and cheap Chinese imports.
To put this in perspective the price of the house I bought in 1996 went up threefold because of the ability for people to borrow more and more money. It used to be three times salary or two and a half times joint but this increased to ten times. What this means is that first time buyers have struggled to finance a home, ours was proced out of the market for them, even though when we bought Chris was at university.
The other great annoyance I have with this government is that there are layers upon layers of beaurocracy that we pay for that serve no purpose. Despite the money poured into the Health Service and Education there is no improvement. I've personally seen a marked decline. I had my children nearly three years apart, the difference was appalling. With Joe I was lucky enough to have him at a quiet time, if I'd have had him the day before I'd have given birth in the corridor. This from a first world country.
Then there is the nanny state telling us how to live our lives, feed our children, educate our children. etc. The people making up these rules have no children of their own.
Then there's our involvement in Iraq, it's less a question of whether it's what the people wanted to more a question that the information we were fed was manipulated, that's perhaps to light a word, untrue is perhaps better.
I suppose I'm quite old fashioned and I suspect that we are closer in ideaology than it sounds by my post Stuart. I did like Mo Mowlam as a person, I think she started to see through the shiny facade of the Labour Party.
One thing I will agree with you on is that I whole wanted Hillary to win. I know Obama carries a lot of support in America, we do just see clips and I can't claim to have seen many of his speeches. To me though he seems a little inexperienced, especially on the international stage. This might very well work in his favour. Hillary had the edge from what I can see, she had more gravitas. Hillary invokes strong feelings, perhaps she wouldn't go down with the public at large?
Something that was brought up on our news was, please correct me if I'm wrong Hillary won the states that are the traditional Democrat areas but Obama has won in the areas less likely to vote Democrat in the general election. If he can't swing Hillary's voters he will have a tough fight. Whereas if Hilary had have won she'd would have carried home those states and just needed to work on some of the more marginal states. I hope I make sense.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
-
Mr. O'Brady
- Posts: 123
- Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 10:06 pm
Alison
I'm sorry that I thought you were a Conserative. I just fell into the trap as many do of thinking if you're not a Labour supporter, a person must be a Tory.
I remember yrs ago when Margaret Thatcher was PM and very unpopular. Luckilly for her to some extent, Michael Foot's extreme left wing Labour party was unelectable. I did hope fora change in the political format when David Steele's Liberal party joined in Alliance with Roy Jenkin's Social Democrats, as they led the polls for a brief period, only for Argentina to invade The Falkland Islands. This resulted in a war that transformed Margaret Thatcher into a popular leader and The Alliance lost it's way. I remember to Spitting image gave a very wrong impression of David Steele, putting across the fact he was always grovelling to Democrat leader David Owen. Unfortunatly, though it was a puppet sketch show, the public believed them and didn't give them many votes. This was proved a nonesene just after the Election when Steele won the battle with Owen by merging The Libs and The Democrats into one party, against his wishes.
Paddy Ashton, who succeeded Steele, proved IMO to be a polititian with real values, who was a man of consience
I'm sorry that I thought you were a Conserative. I just fell into the trap as many do of thinking if you're not a Labour supporter, a person must be a Tory.
I remember yrs ago when Margaret Thatcher was PM and very unpopular. Luckilly for her to some extent, Michael Foot's extreme left wing Labour party was unelectable. I did hope fora change in the political format when David Steele's Liberal party joined in Alliance with Roy Jenkin's Social Democrats, as they led the polls for a brief period, only for Argentina to invade The Falkland Islands. This resulted in a war that transformed Margaret Thatcher into a popular leader and The Alliance lost it's way. I remember to Spitting image gave a very wrong impression of David Steele, putting across the fact he was always grovelling to Democrat leader David Owen. Unfortunatly, though it was a puppet sketch show, the public believed them and didn't give them many votes. This was proved a nonesene just after the Election when Steele won the battle with Owen by merging The Libs and The Democrats into one party, against his wishes.
Paddy Ashton, who succeeded Steele, proved IMO to be a polititian with real values, who was a man of consience
Stuart & CCFan:
I cannot discuss English government because I don't know the first thing about it - You mention the tories, and we got rid of them after the first 20 years, so that is a faction totally foreign. I am also not an expert on the U.S. government or its' workings, I can only speak as a person who has been around for a lot of presidential elections. Early in the 20th century we had our first unmarried president, but he did marry while in office. I was around however for our second milestone - the youngest, but also first Irish Catholic, and ultimately assassinated president. I also saw a president impeached in more ways than one, and one accused of sexual hi-jinx in the Oval office. We've had a peanut farmer who spoke like Andy Griffith, and a rancher who spoke like everybody's good old boy, and before my time we had a president who looked and spoke like a quiet little man, but wasn't afraid to tell people where to go when the going got tough. At one time our presidents were taken from the military, but that stopped with Ike. All of this is leading up to the fact that no matter where they came from, our presidents all had the personal magnetism and grace to keep our country at the top in ranks of respect and admiration until the past 8 years.
I understand how Mr. O'Brady can be discouraged with the presidential election, and yes it has gone on extraordinarily long, but it has also given us time to examine the people in the race, and decide who to follow. For some inexplicable reason (or as I firmly believe, fixed voting machines), Bush was re-elected, and if people like Mr. O'Brady don't want to vote, then fine, but please realize that people all over the world caught on to Bush long before citizens of the U.S. did. Too many people do not listen to speeches, whether in or out of office and obviously because he was so boring and stupid, many of us ignored Bush when he spoke, therefore were unaware of how terrible a speaker he is. That is what others caught on to before us. He never answered questions, and when he did he made no sense in his answers. Worst of all, he had no conception of certain words the reporters used in their questions, so he just stood there with his dumb smirky smile on his face. Voting for Bush was just a carry over from his Dad who wasn't all that bad, just as voters for Hillary are seeing Bill standing right behind her, and if JFK jr. were alive and running, he would have given both Obama and Hillary a run for their money.
We vote with our hearts and memories, we need a longer election time to get to know these people. What do we know about this hockey-mom from Alaska? Let's face it, McCain is an older man, and has already had heart problems, would she be capable of taking charge if anything happened to him?
Anne
I cannot discuss English government because I don't know the first thing about it - You mention the tories, and we got rid of them after the first 20 years, so that is a faction totally foreign. I am also not an expert on the U.S. government or its' workings, I can only speak as a person who has been around for a lot of presidential elections. Early in the 20th century we had our first unmarried president, but he did marry while in office. I was around however for our second milestone - the youngest, but also first Irish Catholic, and ultimately assassinated president. I also saw a president impeached in more ways than one, and one accused of sexual hi-jinx in the Oval office. We've had a peanut farmer who spoke like Andy Griffith, and a rancher who spoke like everybody's good old boy, and before my time we had a president who looked and spoke like a quiet little man, but wasn't afraid to tell people where to go when the going got tough. At one time our presidents were taken from the military, but that stopped with Ike. All of this is leading up to the fact that no matter where they came from, our presidents all had the personal magnetism and grace to keep our country at the top in ranks of respect and admiration until the past 8 years.
I understand how Mr. O'Brady can be discouraged with the presidential election, and yes it has gone on extraordinarily long, but it has also given us time to examine the people in the race, and decide who to follow. For some inexplicable reason (or as I firmly believe, fixed voting machines), Bush was re-elected, and if people like Mr. O'Brady don't want to vote, then fine, but please realize that people all over the world caught on to Bush long before citizens of the U.S. did. Too many people do not listen to speeches, whether in or out of office and obviously because he was so boring and stupid, many of us ignored Bush when he spoke, therefore were unaware of how terrible a speaker he is. That is what others caught on to before us. He never answered questions, and when he did he made no sense in his answers. Worst of all, he had no conception of certain words the reporters used in their questions, so he just stood there with his dumb smirky smile on his face. Voting for Bush was just a carry over from his Dad who wasn't all that bad, just as voters for Hillary are seeing Bill standing right behind her, and if JFK jr. were alive and running, he would have given both Obama and Hillary a run for their money.
We vote with our hearts and memories, we need a longer election time to get to know these people. What do we know about this hockey-mom from Alaska? Let's face it, McCain is an older man, and has already had heart problems, would she be capable of taking charge if anything happened to him?
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
Mr. O'Brady
- Posts: 123
- Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 10:06 pm
Anne, I did vote against Bush four times, twice for Governor, and twice for President. I knew he was awful, but as you stated in an earlier post, personality and looks do seem to matter to most Americans. I guess people just like to have someone in charge that is dumber than themselves? But after basically being called a traitor while donating platelets at the Red Cross the day after the 2004 elections, I vowed not to bother voting anymore. This state is full of some serious wackos.
Anne
There have been many political parties in the UK over the yrs, but I'll just talk about the last 100 yrs or so
Though The Labour party was founded in 1900, only two parties were electable, The Tory's and The Liberals. Liberal David Llyod George became PM in 1916 and one of his Cabinet members was Winston Churchill, who crossed the floor, leaving the Tory's.
However, I think with a social consience brewing in the Country after WW1, The Labour Party became a threat to the big two. In fact when Labour won the Election in 1924 it signalled the end of the Liberal's as a governing power. Churchill again crossed the floor, back to the Tory's.
In 1945 Labour again found themselves in power and as a result Nationalised industries like Steel, Coal, Gas and most importantly created The National Health Service, giving free health care to everyone (I don't think it's quite the same now) It wasn't until Margaret Thatcher came to power with the Tories in 1979, they started to re-privatise all the industries, save The Health Service
American Presidents like Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklyn D Roosevelt and Bill Clinton are ones I admired for one reason or another.
There have been many political parties in the UK over the yrs, but I'll just talk about the last 100 yrs or so
Though The Labour party was founded in 1900, only two parties were electable, The Tory's and The Liberals. Liberal David Llyod George became PM in 1916 and one of his Cabinet members was Winston Churchill, who crossed the floor, leaving the Tory's.
However, I think with a social consience brewing in the Country after WW1, The Labour Party became a threat to the big two. In fact when Labour won the Election in 1924 it signalled the end of the Liberal's as a governing power. Churchill again crossed the floor, back to the Tory's.
In 1945 Labour again found themselves in power and as a result Nationalised industries like Steel, Coal, Gas and most importantly created The National Health Service, giving free health care to everyone (I don't think it's quite the same now) It wasn't until Margaret Thatcher came to power with the Tories in 1979, they started to re-privatise all the industries, save The Health Service
American Presidents like Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklyn D Roosevelt and Bill Clinton are ones I admired for one reason or another.
One thing I find interesting about this election is that regardless of who wins, it will make history. If the Republicans win, we have our first woman VP and if the Dems win, we'll have the first (partially) Black President. I wonderif that was in the back of McCain's mind when he picked Palin, because I can't see how she helps him, exactly. I mean, Alaska? How does that bring him any votes? And besides her hubby had a DUI 20 years ago, and her daughter is pregnant, all of which will affect the Religious Right, I think.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. "~~Wilde
-
jdb1
With all of John McCain's military experience, you'd think he'd understand the concept of shooting oneself in the foot. I think his choice will be a disaster for his campaign on many levels, and I have a feeling this woman will spend a great deal of time backtracking and trying to soften some of the socially and politically tone-deaf things she's bound to say. I can't wait for the Palin/Biden debate - a vice presidential debate is something I might not ordinarily pay attention to, but this one's going to be worth seeing, and I sincerely hope he wipes the floor with her.
My real concern is just who was it who picked Gov. Palin? Out of touch McCain, or his out-of-touch handlers? Did you hear one of the TV pundits speculating that the McCain camp thinks that Hilary supporters will now throw in with McCain because he's chosen Gov. Palin? Huh???? Is that why women might have supported Clinton? Because any woman will do? Sheesh.
My real concern is just who was it who picked Gov. Palin? Out of touch McCain, or his out-of-touch handlers? Did you hear one of the TV pundits speculating that the McCain camp thinks that Hilary supporters will now throw in with McCain because he's chosen Gov. Palin? Huh???? Is that why women might have supported Clinton? Because any woman will do? Sheesh.
Pot stirred.
For all of you in England who keep going on, I'd like to propose a thought:
Great Britain today is closer to Oceania than ever. Even more-so than under Thatcher, quite possibly your worst leader since Henry III. You have more CCTV cameras than anywhere in the world, three times the next closest country, and you have more innocents registered in your DNA database than anywhere else in the world - mostly because you have the world's only DNA database. Not only that, but the police refuse to delete entries, even when specifically ordered to by the Lords, and have taken it upon themselves to add children's DNA to the registry when samples are taken under "safe watch" programs to guarantee their safety. Furthermore, the Met have launched a campaign against photographers operating in public, making numerous arrests and destroying numerous cameras under dubious claims of "national security" or "suspected pedophilia." Furthermore, the Met took it upon themselves to disobey direct orders by numerous superiors and shot and killed an innocent Brazilian man that was known, to everyone involved, to have been innocent. Not only that, but England has the most oppressive anti-gun-and-knife legislation in the entire world yet has one of the most well-armed police forces in the world. Not only that, but you can be detained for up to 42 days without being formally charged with anything. Not only that, but even town councils possess the ability to wiretap citizens' computers and telephones. Town councils! Not only that, but your domestic news organizations have been thoroughly neutered by the updated DA-Notice gag order system. What about the NHS and its all-encompassing database and New Labours desire to cut you out of health care should you partake in any "activities" deemed unhealthy by the government?
New Labour has thoroughly destroyed what few civil liberties you and your countrymen possessed, all under the guise of domestic and social security and filing every jagged edge down to an inoffensive bump. Let's not even get in to the issue of how OFCOM and the BBFC have taken to operating more and more like the FCC and the MPAA - although your country isn't new to the act of censorship, the blatant way in which it operates today is shocking. You could go on and on and on and on about New Labour, from complaining about the national smoking ban to lamenting the fact that Blair was Bush's lapdog to... hell, you get the point. To be honest, the only reason England hasn't completely fallen to Big Brother is the politicians' own blinding ineptitude. Rarely does pure idiocy stand in the way of the grand schemes of puppet-masters, but much like a James Bond villain, your government is constantly undermining itself.
Hillary would have been an awful president. Aside from the fact that she would prefer the electorate to be subservient automatons willing to cow to her every whim and fancy (no smoking! no drinking! no boobs on tv! no violence! no video games! no loud music! no FUN! no PRIVACY! no SEX!), she would have nationalized many of the industries most important to the free market that our economy would turn schizophrenic! Obama will do the same, but he's learned to tone down such obviously career-damaging overtones, much as Hillary did as a Senator. Obama is an incredibly charming man and a great speaker, but his words ring hollow and through familiarity and nostalgia remind us of many great speakers of the past and our sentiments towards them. In many ways he has superficially distanced himself from the more extreme topics without offending either party's constituency, my what short fallible memories we have, while drawing on all his charm to deliver feel-good heart string-tugging rhetoric that promises the world but offers no insight into the hard paths taken to achieve such lofty goals. Have we suffered so long under the Worst Presidency Ever that we're willing to sell ourselves short just to say "well, at least it's not him anymore!"? We're better than that, and we deserve better. Abraham Lincoln he ain't.
What we have here is a cult of personality. The deifying of Obama and his subsequent portrayal in the media as Black Jesus is sickening. Where are the facts behind his assertions? What renewable energy will we fund, how will we fund it? Does he support a mixture of technologies and is he willing to back nuclear, detestable as it is? How, exactly, will his proposed per-barrel tax on oil companies offer relief to consumers at the pump? How will this tax be spent? What will he do regarding the environment and the still-unanswered questions regarding the legitimacy of climate change, global warming and water shortage? Is he willing to make the many incredibly tough decisions that the many ideas presented in his speeches will require? Most importantly, will he respect the constitution, every single line of it, especially the bill of rights, and will he keep to his word that when in office he will spend the first year of his Presidency trying to undo every single law signed and policy enacted by Bush? - many of which he voted for himself, a fact rarely acknowledged.
Our Constitution, the single most important document in existence today, in fact ever written, has been trampled for decades and exists merely in tatters today. To believe that Obama will do anything but merely complete the (current) butchering began by Nixon, legitimized by Reagan and furthered by W. is naive. My gun ownership rights, which I do not even exercise, will definitely be under attack, in what is almost always the only liberal interpretation of an amendment made by a political party which nearly always prefers literal interpretations. My right as an adult to naughty words on the radio and nipples on television will surely come under fire, as will my right to play violent video games, smoke in the great outdoors and eat baby cow if I so damn please, as to elect Obama is to also elect a democratic Congress and appoint at least one liberal-friendly Supreme Court judge. Furthermore, to expect this congress and Presidency to deliver us from the evil legislation enacted by previous administrations is incredibly naive, as both parties have grown accustomed to the powers granted under such laws and policies.
Lastly, should Obama turn out to be the corrupt swindler - at least in part - that we all know him to be, my major complaint with his fanbase - as he is a rockstar celebrity, deny it not - is that his failures shall simply be dismissed as not as bad as anything Bush did, and that at least he's "our kind of corrupt!" - a mentality which sickens me. This tit-for-tat style of politics has to stop, and soon, as it is damaging this country beyond repair. Corrupt is corrupt, and I'm tired of each party trading off administrations simply so they can get their say, write their laws and get their way, at least for four years at a time. The most damaging act of Bush's administration isn't the war on terror or in Iraq or high gas prices or the fact that he sold us out to the corporations (surely to continue under Obama) or the way in which he trampled the constitution or any of the many horrific things he did to this country; no, in fact, his most damaging deed was that of lowering expectations and polarizing further a country all ready populated by extremes. Great job, W.
Finally, if McCain's age and health can be called in to question (and do not mistake me for a supporter of the Republican party), I'm going to pull the comparative card: What happens if Obama is assassinated? Fear of the unknown should never be reason not to progress, but could our nation, in so fragile a time, in fact the most fragile since the great depression, survive such an act?
Great Britain today is closer to Oceania than ever. Even more-so than under Thatcher, quite possibly your worst leader since Henry III. You have more CCTV cameras than anywhere in the world, three times the next closest country, and you have more innocents registered in your DNA database than anywhere else in the world - mostly because you have the world's only DNA database. Not only that, but the police refuse to delete entries, even when specifically ordered to by the Lords, and have taken it upon themselves to add children's DNA to the registry when samples are taken under "safe watch" programs to guarantee their safety. Furthermore, the Met have launched a campaign against photographers operating in public, making numerous arrests and destroying numerous cameras under dubious claims of "national security" or "suspected pedophilia." Furthermore, the Met took it upon themselves to disobey direct orders by numerous superiors and shot and killed an innocent Brazilian man that was known, to everyone involved, to have been innocent. Not only that, but England has the most oppressive anti-gun-and-knife legislation in the entire world yet has one of the most well-armed police forces in the world. Not only that, but you can be detained for up to 42 days without being formally charged with anything. Not only that, but even town councils possess the ability to wiretap citizens' computers and telephones. Town councils! Not only that, but your domestic news organizations have been thoroughly neutered by the updated DA-Notice gag order system. What about the NHS and its all-encompassing database and New Labours desire to cut you out of health care should you partake in any "activities" deemed unhealthy by the government?
New Labour has thoroughly destroyed what few civil liberties you and your countrymen possessed, all under the guise of domestic and social security and filing every jagged edge down to an inoffensive bump. Let's not even get in to the issue of how OFCOM and the BBFC have taken to operating more and more like the FCC and the MPAA - although your country isn't new to the act of censorship, the blatant way in which it operates today is shocking. You could go on and on and on and on about New Labour, from complaining about the national smoking ban to lamenting the fact that Blair was Bush's lapdog to... hell, you get the point. To be honest, the only reason England hasn't completely fallen to Big Brother is the politicians' own blinding ineptitude. Rarely does pure idiocy stand in the way of the grand schemes of puppet-masters, but much like a James Bond villain, your government is constantly undermining itself.
Hillary would have been an awful president. Aside from the fact that she would prefer the electorate to be subservient automatons willing to cow to her every whim and fancy (no smoking! no drinking! no boobs on tv! no violence! no video games! no loud music! no FUN! no PRIVACY! no SEX!), she would have nationalized many of the industries most important to the free market that our economy would turn schizophrenic! Obama will do the same, but he's learned to tone down such obviously career-damaging overtones, much as Hillary did as a Senator. Obama is an incredibly charming man and a great speaker, but his words ring hollow and through familiarity and nostalgia remind us of many great speakers of the past and our sentiments towards them. In many ways he has superficially distanced himself from the more extreme topics without offending either party's constituency, my what short fallible memories we have, while drawing on all his charm to deliver feel-good heart string-tugging rhetoric that promises the world but offers no insight into the hard paths taken to achieve such lofty goals. Have we suffered so long under the Worst Presidency Ever that we're willing to sell ourselves short just to say "well, at least it's not him anymore!"? We're better than that, and we deserve better. Abraham Lincoln he ain't.
What we have here is a cult of personality. The deifying of Obama and his subsequent portrayal in the media as Black Jesus is sickening. Where are the facts behind his assertions? What renewable energy will we fund, how will we fund it? Does he support a mixture of technologies and is he willing to back nuclear, detestable as it is? How, exactly, will his proposed per-barrel tax on oil companies offer relief to consumers at the pump? How will this tax be spent? What will he do regarding the environment and the still-unanswered questions regarding the legitimacy of climate change, global warming and water shortage? Is he willing to make the many incredibly tough decisions that the many ideas presented in his speeches will require? Most importantly, will he respect the constitution, every single line of it, especially the bill of rights, and will he keep to his word that when in office he will spend the first year of his Presidency trying to undo every single law signed and policy enacted by Bush? - many of which he voted for himself, a fact rarely acknowledged.
Our Constitution, the single most important document in existence today, in fact ever written, has been trampled for decades and exists merely in tatters today. To believe that Obama will do anything but merely complete the (current) butchering began by Nixon, legitimized by Reagan and furthered by W. is naive. My gun ownership rights, which I do not even exercise, will definitely be under attack, in what is almost always the only liberal interpretation of an amendment made by a political party which nearly always prefers literal interpretations. My right as an adult to naughty words on the radio and nipples on television will surely come under fire, as will my right to play violent video games, smoke in the great outdoors and eat baby cow if I so damn please, as to elect Obama is to also elect a democratic Congress and appoint at least one liberal-friendly Supreme Court judge. Furthermore, to expect this congress and Presidency to deliver us from the evil legislation enacted by previous administrations is incredibly naive, as both parties have grown accustomed to the powers granted under such laws and policies.
Lastly, should Obama turn out to be the corrupt swindler - at least in part - that we all know him to be, my major complaint with his fanbase - as he is a rockstar celebrity, deny it not - is that his failures shall simply be dismissed as not as bad as anything Bush did, and that at least he's "our kind of corrupt!" - a mentality which sickens me. This tit-for-tat style of politics has to stop, and soon, as it is damaging this country beyond repair. Corrupt is corrupt, and I'm tired of each party trading off administrations simply so they can get their say, write their laws and get their way, at least for four years at a time. The most damaging act of Bush's administration isn't the war on terror or in Iraq or high gas prices or the fact that he sold us out to the corporations (surely to continue under Obama) or the way in which he trampled the constitution or any of the many horrific things he did to this country; no, in fact, his most damaging deed was that of lowering expectations and polarizing further a country all ready populated by extremes. Great job, W.
Finally, if McCain's age and health can be called in to question (and do not mistake me for a supporter of the Republican party), I'm going to pull the comparative card: What happens if Obama is assassinated? Fear of the unknown should never be reason not to progress, but could our nation, in so fragile a time, in fact the most fragile since the great depression, survive such an act?