₦airaland Forum

Ibime,

You are always skimming the surface and taking everything at its face value to express your viewpoint. Ayers qualification and all these facts are not why Obama's association is questioned. The reason is simple - nobody says Obama has no right to associate with who he pleases, instead there is contention on why he lied about the quality or depth of such association.

Were there partnering, were there ideological alignments between the two and if there is what is it about? If Obama sits and discuss with Ayers on how to improve educational curriculum, then what is the substance of the curriculum and knowing Ayers, what are the objectives of the educational reform?

If a man breaks into your house and violates your wife and then 40yrs later says that he wished he had done more than just rape her but the guy running for Governor in your state had associated with this dude on certain social issues wouldn't you want to know the extent of such association before you cast vote for the governor?

Seriously.

If anything it's Palin that's bothering me, not McCain

C'mon, you all stop hating on the reformer. We need women like her in Nigeria to take on those dirty old, conniving politicians. This is woman's strength and for all of you wanting recognition for feminine power she is a pacesetter. True she might not be a Hillary or a Condoleeza, but in her own capacity she is a model and ought to be embraced.

Right, Karma?

Ruby,

Wow, that says it all!! Thank You for that wise input, short but straight to the point.

@Post,

On legal challenges,

1. if there's margin of victory for Obama will ACORN be sued?

2. will there be defections in electoral college votes?

3. will Secretaries of State represent the power of Office or can we expect their loyalty to be aligned with party?


I am voting Republican platform but if Obama wins then I expect the following:

1. expansion of rights for homosexuals, to include legal definitions on marriage

2. redistribution of districts and constituents, primarily targeted for voter drives

3. worsening of international relations with US loosing more control to Russia and China

4. reversal of gains made in the Middle East

5. Israel will strike unilaterally into Arab lands

6. EU will dominate Global treaties

7. Hillary, if nominated for Supreme Court will not win

8. Pelosi may become Vice President

9. With Executive and Legislative in the hands of Democrats, Republicans will use the Judiciary as a stronghold on amendments or changes in legal interpretations of key issues, abortion being one of them.

10. Obama will finish first term in office but will not win a second term because he would have failed in 2012 to accomplish much of what he speaks and advocates strongly for and he will then be seen, as he is now, as a man of words but no action.

Given the nature and the unpredictability of this election, America will not be clear on which candidate has won the electoral vote until December 16th. It might even prolong beyond that if there are any legal challenges.

For those supporting the Democrat platform, how would you react if McCain wins?

For those supporting Republican platform, how would you react to an Obama win?

Lets hear it.

@Post,

Let's be frank, there's nothing the Republicans are doing that is new. This is how both sides, Dems and Reps have always ran campaigns. This is the first time that people enmasee have trully turned attention to every word spoken on the stump, to every rally, to every ad, to every controversy and spins coming out of the opponents camp. This is the first time that people across the electorate are awakened to the dirtiness, the ugliness and the brutalities of campaigning and quite naturally, its a turn off.

Do not blame Republicans for it - what you are seeing from the McCain camp is the tradition of American politics. The Obama camp is also dirty and ugly and brutal but less so than the other side. If Hillary had been the nominee, what you are currently witnessing is nothing in comparison to the cross-fires that we will witness on both sides.

Go back to 1996 when Clinton faced off with Bob Dole. There were calls from rallying supporters of Dole on the campaign trail that called for Clinton to be assassinated. Robert Kennedy was assasinated on the campaign trail. It is abhoring to go to that extremity and called for the opponents head but hey, isnt that how it is done in Nigeria?

In Nigeria supporters ambush their opponents, kidnap them, soak with gasoline and set them ablaze. Yes, it is ugly but this is the nature of Politics. Do not attribute it as a Republican disease. To do so will be allowing your emotions to guide your political choice instead of guiding it with your reasoning.


On Obama - Ayers' association, there is a technical hurdle for Obama. As the President he has the highest security clearance and this level of access he will share with other prominent people critical to the national security. When there is doubt in the background of an applicant to that clearance or there is a gap in their biological or chronological profile, a polygraph test is given. It contains a bunch of questions and one of them is a question that asks the subject, and I paraphrase this, if he/she has knowingly been in contact, associate with, support or receive support from a terrorist.

On the surface it looks as if this is no more than a silly attack but Obama need to respond to it early and dissipate the current. The technicality can become a legal battle because it has to do with civic responsibility.

To all the respondents on my last post, I quite understand the tie between politics and religion, I understand its practices in America and everywhere else and I understand its relevance on the issues of everyday life. What I find disturbing is the dogmas we inject into it.

"We shall overcome" , , . overcome what?

There is a difference between conscious and sub-conscious. That difference is highlighted in the dimensions between when Adam and Eve were obedient and instinctive in the garden of Eden and the aftermath of their episode when they were transformed and became adventurous and logical.

White people understand these dimensions very well and teach it to their children. We Africans and of African ancestry have remained stuck in the garden - we are still obedient and instinctive. Our power of adventure and logical pursuits is blunt.

So that everytime our consciousness encouter the mundane reality of an obstacled path, what's the first thing we do? Instead of resolving the encounter at the conscious level we escape back into the subconscious and reach for the Bible and the Koran and whatever else scripture we believe in and seek divine answers and dogmas to shield ourselves.

Please keep your faith and religion and dogmas out of political discourse. We are not talking about God or Jesus, we are talking about social and political issues at the conscious dimension of humanity.

@Post

Each one of them offered some responses that is very troubling for me and others like me that are, not default voters, but asking critical questions of the issues tabled by these candidates.

McCain said Government should buyback troubled mortgages on the book from lenders and reappraise them for true value and then re-finance the property based on its true market value but packaged with a workout that makes it affordable for the borrower.

John, this is a noble idea but what's on the lenders' book is overvalued and ballooned sometimes to 50% above the fair market value. Paying off the lender what's on the book is again, rewarding culprits. How is this different from bailing out Wall street?

But then we must ask, what cap should be put on the mortgage buyback? How about those that had just lost their homes under the same merit, how would their case be handled? How about those who have been dilligent in their payments and had to sacrifice other needs just so they would not fall behind in their house notes, what are they to do?

It seems McCain is rewarding irresponsible behavior and punishing accountability. The same mess that got Wall street where it is today, and he wants to extend that now to Main street.

I have issue with that and he needs to clear this up.


Obama said healthcare should be a right.

Barack did not anticipate this question before the debate. If he did he would have answered like McCain did, "it should be a responsibility". There is nothing more evident of extreme liberalism than asking for a right to healthcare in America.

Most often, terms are given meaning and definition in America far differently than in other nations of the world. The way "right" is defined in Nigerian society is totally different than how it is defined in American society.

In America, right is a legal protection that is consistently interpreted nationally under the guidelines of the constitution and it is a guarantee given to an individual assuring him/her that a force or power of influence that otherwise might oppress that individual in ways that makes life and liberty unbearable or intolerable is thereby curtailed and with no net consequence whatsoever to that individual. It is not graded, it is not qualified, it is not quantified, it costs nothing, it is free.

Without the right, it is easy for a tyrannical Government to trample upon the life and liberty of an individual in ways that the person will suffer some resulting consequences.

Obama has a noble vision in demanding something better than what we have but he went to the extreme by wanting to make it a right. In America today there are people by way of rights that have chosen not to be gainfully employed. They are able bodied and healthy in their minds and capacity to earn income but they willingly choose to be counterproductive and live off taxpayers money. Social welfare programs that were intended for eligible and merit cases to get financial, housing, medical aid from government have been abused on the argument of rights. There are people out there that genuinely need to be on welfare but then thare are millions more who do not but they are.

There are millions of workers in this country that could care nothing about their jobs but everyday they still wake up and report for work and its not because of the income, because if they wanted to they could resign from their job and live the bum life, but the single and common reason they stay on is because of the health insurance. If Barack Obama succeeded in making healthcare a right, these workers will troop out of their 8 hr shift grind, go get a medical report qualifying them for social seurity benefits, welfare benefits, section 8 benefits, life insurance benefits, Obama has given them health rights and now why should they have to labour for needs that are provided free. It will become more rewarding to be unemployed than it is to be employed. National productivity will sink.

I have a problem with this and I will like for Obama to clear things up.

Exactly how does he intend to implement a healthcare right and still keep productivity up?

Provision, obligatory, constitutional right, social issue. . . . . lets stop mincing words. . . . . . Yankee needs to catch up to the rest of the developed World. . . . simple. . . . there is no effect on productivity. . . . British companies do not pay any health insurance for their employees. . . . . Yankee companies do. . . so which is affecting productivity? .

Incorrect!

To my earlier question, I will appreciate anyone to clarify what Obama meant by declaring that health care should be a right.

. . , am sure the intent of health care being a right is clear. Obama was a constitutional law lecturer do u honestly think McCain has the intellectual ability to distinguish the issue(s) better,

Away4Real,

Please clarify, what is the intent of Obama in making healthcare a right for Americans? Before you answer, I would like for you to weigh the consequence of such action against the output on productivity. Consider also that in countries where healthcare is managed by the government, it is done so as a provision and it is not obligatory.

It is obvious that Michelle Obama is too real and too strong for white folks to handle, I will prefer Obama to allow Michelle to lay-low for now. Nobody seems to be focusing on her at the moment, I think it would be better and safer to keep it this way.

This is a Great Idea!

At least it was, untill you said this. . . . .

3. It has been confirmed that McCain's camp has decided to cut the risk by not allowing Sarah Palin to engage with any TV or radio interview till the end of the presidential election. I think this is the perfect time for Obama to take advantage of this strategic decision, by sending his VP (Joe Biden) to every single TV talk show all over the country from now on till Nov 3 2008. This move would expose McPalin and make Americans wonder what McPalin's team is trying to hide.

. . . and just what do you think McCain will do? Of course start sending Cindy and Tod out there in people face in hope questions will be asked about Michelle's whereabout. Why is our potential First Lady not meeting and greeting the citizens?

BigB, chill with the impulse and weigh the two sides of the coin, otherwise you might throw Obama under the bus.

Ibime,

You are not pumping $700 billion dollars into a responsible and accountable market. You continue to look at what the money will do. You don't need to be an award winning economist to connect the dots and to know what the money will do. Use your firm understanding and analytical ingenuity to tell us how the implementation of the bailout will succeed in the hands of corrupt thieves. Thats what I want to know.

You have $5,000 of your own money in savings. You blew it. When asked to account for what happened, you are incoherent and worse, you confessed that after blowing your own money, you also went into debt for another $2,500.
Now, you are $7,500 in the hole. You come to NL and asked to be bailed out so you do not loose your valuables to the debtors.

Oga Seun, says no problem. We will take a vote and see what can be done to rescue you. All day long you tell us about what the bailout can do to help you save your valuables. How?? I am willing to vote in favor of the aid but I am asking simple question here, . . .

If you could not manage your $5,000 and beyond that $2,500 and can't even articulate what happened to it, what guarantees are there that what aid we will give you will not end up similarly as did the $7,500.

We don't want to hear what $7,500 can buy.

Credibility has been assassinated and so has character. Far more than what can be rescued with $700 billion, how does Wall street regain its virtue? Help us understand that.

Oh, I should have finished reading the entire article before reacting, it gets worse. Here is the full page.

For those of you supporting Obama and his change slogan, and some of you even believe that his Presidency will benefit blacks. Look in the following and tell me where the benfits from all these barrels is going. These are not targeted to reward or benefit black people. If you live in any of those state that dont pay income tax and you will have a sales tax deduction out of Federal tax, then I encourage you to start keeping every sales receipt. Again, white people do things like that because they itemize their returns. Black folks just take the standard deduction of $2500 or so.


For example, the proposal includes an excise tax exemption for a very specific type of arrow used by child archers.

According to Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group, current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows.

"This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more," Ellis wrote.

The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over 10 years, he wrote.

Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, and Gordon Smith, a Republican, were the initial sponsors of the arrow provision. According to Bloomberg News, the earmark provision would be worth $200,000 a year to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.

A Wyden aide said the Oregon senator did not ask that the provision be added to bailout package, but that doesn't fly with Ellis.

"The bottom line is, this is benefiting a very few manufacturers, and I think most Americans who are either concerned about the bailout package or concerned about the economy are going to be wondering why a provision benefiting wooden arrow manufacturers is catching a ride on the package," Ellis said.

The Taxpayers for Common Sense also reports that the proposal includes such mouthwatering morsels as these:

Creation of a seven-year cost recovery period for construction of a motorsports racetrack: Track owners currently follow a seven-year depreciation schedule and write each year's depreciation off their taxes. The IRS wanted to increase the depreciation timetable to 15 years, which would mean the track owner's depreciation would be cut in half. The measure in the keeps the seven-year depreciation schedule for two years and would cost taxpayers $100 million.


A refund of excise taxes to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for rum (Ogogoro, Burukutu): A $13.50 per gallon excise tax is placed on rum imported into the United States. The measure extends to December 31, 2009, a refund of $13.25 per gallon tax back to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which are both U.S. territories. The refund has been in place since the early '90s. The measure would cost taxpayers $192 million.


Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation: The measure would allow the plaintiffs who won damages from Exxon Mobile for the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez to average the award over three years rather than treating it as income in a single year. The measure was backed by Alaska Rep. Don Young and would cost taxpayers $49 million.


Secure rural schools and community self-determination program: The program replaces revenue rural communities used to enjoy from the sale of federal forest land. The measure is sponsored by lawmakers from Oregon and Idaho. The program would cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.


Deduction of state and local sales taxes: The measure allows citizens who do not pay state income taxes to deduct the amount of sales tax they pay over a year from their federal income tax for two additional years. States that benefit include Texas, Nevada, Florida, Washington and Wyoming. The measure would cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.

If you live here, when you shop keep your receipts and itemize your deductions in Federal return.


Provisions related to film and television productions: In order to keep movie production in the U.S., production companies would be allowed to deduct the cost of producing the films from their taxes. Rep. Diane Watson, D-California, has been one of the program's biggest supporters. The measure would cost taxpayers $478 million over 10 years.


Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products, wool research fund and wool duty refunds: The measure helps U.S. worsted wool fabric makers and clothing manufacturers. The bill extends provisions through 2014 or 2015 that were originally sponsored by Reps. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, and Melissa Bean, D-Illinois, in 2007. The measure would cost taxpayers $148 million.


Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa: The measure would extend for two years provisions meant to help economic development in the U.S. territory of American Samoa. The measure would cost taxpayers $33 million.


Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters: The measure would allow employers to provide benefits to employees who commute to work via bicycle, such as help purchasing and maintaining a bicycle. The measure would cost taxpayers $10 million

ROTFLMAO Excellent humor, love it!

SeanT, you go make Fela vex for inside grave. If any country need to be re-ceded, its Nigeria.

When you look at the bailout from a domestic perspective, it is an idealistic but irresponsible action.

It is idealistic because the leaders believe in American self-sufficiency and see it a national duty to rescue the backbone of its economy with national resource.

It is irresponsible because the same leaders that are promoting domestic solutions are already eyeing the $700b as a windfall and are calculating how their constituencies could benefit from the resulting expansion in funding.

Here is a caption from a CNN article on the strategy employed in the Senate to push the bill through to the House, . .

"Because tax bills must originate in the House, the Senate attached the rescue plan to a bill that deals with renewable energy tax incentives. This allowed the Senate to vote before the House to approve a bailout bill."

I am sure you know what this is - PORK BARREL!

Renewable Energy on its own is a public works project but when you attach tax incentives to it, then you are advancing bids for technological development and which of course expand industrial growth and employment. But then you must ask, why is public works project associated with credit reinvigoration of Wall street?

There are four Cabinets in the Bush Administration that could on its own sponsor or jointly co-sponsor this project without burdening the already insufficient bailout fund but Congress choosed to "pork barrel" it into the bailout fund instead. This is the first evidence of irresponsibility and unaccountability on a bailout fund just signed into law. The ink has not even dried on the paper yet and its already flawed. This is the sign of many worse things to come!

Why couldn't these Departments sponsor the renewable energy project - Commerce; Energy; Interior; Labor ?

Does dousing the fire with water going to work when you still have the gas lines leaking?

Thank you.

i wonder which visitors u are talking about. and i hope u are not one of those who are thinking of old john's death or getting a terminal illness.

No, I am not one of those.

reagan was president till he was 78. and he did well.

Are you saying how come he finished his two terms with no visitors?

Look, if the political scene was similar to what it is now and his VP at the time (George H. Bush) was as popular and an asset to the GOP future as Palin is now to the future, trust me, Reagan would not have completed his second term. But you see, Reagan's VP - Bush, had a role that did not include the future. His role was to strategize and implement a plan that will infilterate KGB and destroy USSR.

G.H Bush was head of CIA when Reagan came in office. The global dynamics at the time was reason why Bush was chosen for the VP spot, beside the fact that he was well accomplished professionally. The idea of penetrating eastward from Berlin and pushing into Soviet territory to destabilize the USSR was born by Nixon. Carter did not believe in Nation building, he preferred to contain them rather than to implode them from within. Carter was disgraced out of office by GOP. They manipulated the Iran hostage release to a schedule date past Reagan's Presidential inauguration, so that instead of giving the credit of the negotiations and release to the President that worked for it _Carter_, they hijacked the progress once it became known that Reagan will succeed Carter and made it appear that Reagan was the hero of the occassion.

West and East Germany unified under Reagan. The Soviets, in order to counter the American incursion and limit their influence around the globe sought to manipulate global energy supply from the East and this was what led to their failed ambition in Afghanistan.

Who bankrolled the failure? America. . . . and who was their battlefield Commander? Bin Laden.

I don't want to go too far into all of that but need to circle back to how GOP see the future and why their ideology is totally different from Democrats'.

Democrats see the future as a need to integrate all social values so that there is no borderline of discrimination between varying natures and entities. They seek equality in social status. Their focus is domestic and their motto is live and let live.

Democrats treat their successive administrations as unique and in independent.

Republicans see the future as a need to expand more influence and dominance so that American power is total and absolute. They seek fairness in all endeavors and believe that in the law of survival, the strongest (smartest) wins. Their focus is global and their motto is live and let die.

Republicans treat their successive administrations as a continuity of a vision and ideology towards their end goal of dominating the globe.
______________________________________________

McCain, even though he is a multi-generation Republican. is viewed with suspicion and they are afraid that he went too many times against Bush that when he becomes President he might refuse to adopt a continuum of the agenda that Bush will be leaving behind _ global domination!

Sarah Palin has all the ingredients and her record of accomplishments qualifies her for that movement into the future -

She is young and therefore has many more years of involvement and engagement

She is an outsider, meaning her mind is blank; no exposure to global politics, no Washington experience, no intelligence duties, she will be a dedicated cadet.

She is groomable and can be easily led. Unlike any of the other more suitable choices for the VP spot, Palin is the most qualified for the GOP agenda, although maybe not for the Vice Presidential duties.

Assuming McCain wins two terms, She will serve 8yrs - first full term with John and once John's visitors have come and gone and he soon after that departs the seat, she will assume the mantle and serve out the second term. By which time she has gained enormous credibility in her role and service, as well as global exposure and experience.

Assuming she wins the election of 2016. she has potential for another 8yrs of her own full fledged Presidency. A total of 16yrs in which GOP, through Palin has put its foothold on every doorstep around the world, be it in their economics, social values, political leadership, academic curriculum or religious faith.

As I said long ago, Palin is not John's choice. She was put on him, willingly or non willingly. If he had objected, the visitation with him would have occurred and we would not now be worrying about John McCain in the general election.

Also, GOP knew that Palin is a blank mind, thats why she was chosen for the job. If their objective was in an intelligent VP, they would have picked Romney, Huckabee or even Mayor Bloomberg of NY.

So you all need to chill and stop demanding for her to exhibit intelligence. You will be dissapointed and your high blood pressure will go up from the resulting frustration.

lol,

hey dude, why is ur name nuts? perhaps you are nuts? b/c even K and T have kind of shied away from this woman until the dust of her overwhelming ignorance settles.

Its actually Nations, but its okay if thats the best you can make of it _ nuts it is! I dont care if Im the only one standing for what I believe in, I dont need approval. I validate others, no one validates me. I dont give a hoot about McCain, Obama, Palin, Biden, none of them put a dinner on my table. However, there are issues that each candidate is pushing and I refuse to support issues that will make me go hungry. You are talking to a smart consumer. I ask questions that matter to the issue. Im not a default voter.

listen, the republicans may well win this election but that would be disastrous. know why? exactly what happened in 2004. kerry is more intelligent than bush. as u said. and bush won. good. and the result . . . . . . .over 2,000 more lives lost in iraq (

kerry wanted to end the war

) more billions of dollars spent in iraq, economy . . . etc . .etc . .etc

Kerry is not an effective leader either. Its easy in hindsight to give credit that he would have ended the war and the country would have come out better but how would he implement such a plan successfully when he could not even manage campaign spins thrown at him by Rove?

Kerry would take position A and say thats what he believes in. Rove would come out behind him and say position A is flawed because of PQR and S. Kerry would show up and say he is no longer for position A, he is now supporting position D. Then they will send Ralph Reed to say position D lacks faith based values. Then Kerry would turn around and say he is going back to position A. Back and forth they made a fool of him. Why you think they labelled him flip-flopper? First he is for A, then he flipped to D and then when it was no longer popular to support D, he flopped back to A. How is such a person to be an effective Commander in Chief?? Much less end a war!

if McCain wins, the republicans may rule another 8-12yrs b/c old john will get re-elected and by 8yrs little sarah will become more matured and an incumbent republican is not easy to defeat

He won't finish the second term. He will receive visitors soon after his second inauguration.

meanwhile, let her keep entertaining us she is an embodiment of republican shamelessness

Thats all it is, short term entertainment and drama! If Republicans were looking for an intelligent VP she wont have been the choice.

Your controls are wrong!!!

1. There has never been a defector = this is conditionally true

2. There has never been a black ticket bearer = this is ablsolutely true

If the condition in (1) is removed, 1 will no longer hold true.

There is data to justify the condition in 1. Statistical data from racial demography and constituents as well as social programs and public policies under the banner of civil rights that not only allowed and protect voting rights but also made it criminally liable to discriminate against color line.


Come again . . . .

I never said the decision to inject money into Wall street is morally wrong. I did say immoral and unethical practices contributed to the mess _ viz false accounting practices that became prevalent on Wall street. Someone should have questioned that but no one did.

I am not against a bailout idea but I am against the manner in which it is being carried out.

Credit is not tangible, it is speculative and tied to a collateral. Where was Paulson and Bush and congress when homeowners were being gradually fleeced of their collaterals by banks that flooded the market with equity refinance loans? These were not subprime, I'm talking about prime loans with 20% or more down payment and equities at the inception of closing.

I have three reasons for opposing the plan.

1. The root cause of the problem has not been isolated and removed. Therefore the problem will repeat itself.

2. Government is entering into an area where it becomes too easy for them to violate citizen rights.

3. This is a gobal economy, the banks should seek global means for recovery.

Hip! Hip!! Hip!!!, Hooraaayyyy!!!!

It has been proven time and again that exams and tests are not the best way of determining intelligence. Test is measuring understanding of lectures and instructions, it is not measuring knowledge or awareness. Hence, a lot of people fail exams and sometimes get frustrated and drop out of studies.
Steve Jobs (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Karl Rove (Republican strategist).

I worked with engineering graduates with honors from Georgia Tech, MIT, UCLA, , and some of them have no clue how to draft a user or even system requirements for process mechanization.


Answering debate questions correctly is no measure of competence or ability to make the correct judgement. When faced with a situation demanding practical and prudent response, how much effect or influence does a correct response in a debate have to bear?

Debates are taken in conjunction with other accomplishments to judge a candidate's exposure, awareness, effectiveness, influence, leadership, tact, boldness and flexibility.

So when you take all these together, you are looking at past and current to judge how a candidate will make decisions in future.


If you look at Biden's past you will see that he is not a good leader. He is skilled and he is exposed on international issues but what else beside that has he accomplished?

If you look at Palin, what she lacks in exposure on the economic and international relations she more than makes up for in effectiveness and accountability.

Asking people to circulate the word about the possibility of her wearing a concealed listening device is not the best way to choose a VP. Its not about passing or failing the exam alone, its that and also a review of the classwork and the assignments and the mindset of the student.

People wonder if she will be a good President, considering how much longer McCain has to live. Has anyone thought of the burden a Biden Presidency could be if Obama, God forbid , was assassinated?

Biden had ran for Presidency twice and each time gave up on the first sign of problem. He publicly declared that someone else was better and more qualified than himself as VP.

In 2004, with all his intelligence and far reaching thoughtfullness and broad mindedness, Kerry still lost the election to a less intelligent and a narrow minded incumbent.

Intelligence should be far ahead of competition, globally exposed and well travelled candidate should not be struggling to break the tie with a befuddled mind whose knowledge, awareness and exposure is limited to the borderlines of Alaska.

What is Biden's explanation for why in a 1-1 poll with Palin, he is less favored?

What has changed? Its not how people perceive McCain or Obama, rather, this jump in polls is the outcome of Obama himself letting go of Mr Nice and coming out in a new attitude; Mr Bully came out all of a sudden! That's what he needs!

If he keeps it up he will win. There is no place for Mr Timid and Nice in American Politics. He is too worried about not wanting to ruffle feathers and even McCain has accused him of steering away from controversial issues.

Correction in second to last paragraph, make that "wagon ahead of the horse". Lol.

In this matter Barack need to wear his Harvard hat, but keep the Washington one in hand for quick switch.

Unfortunately, the man well respected for his academic scholarship is on this matter responding like McCain and his congressional peers that Obama is promising to sweep out of Washington.

Ibime,

I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat. As I have stated numerous times before I vote issues, not party. Stop identifying me as a Republican.


On the bailout point, Obama's campaign is running on a "Change" platform, how is injecting public fund to further create and expand corruption a CHANGE?

By supporting and voting for the bailout, Obama in effect, is endorsing the top wealth bracket of America and putting them under the umbrella of promised tax breaks that he has touted for middle income and low income earners. So where is the CHANGE?

If he becomes President and his government owns, say 20% of Wall street in diversified holdings, then he cannot claim tax-free profit earnings for the government but assess tax liabilities on corporations with 10% and 15% of ownership in those net holdings. Now, that's a turn around from his tax promises. If he tax those corporations the he opens a loop for worse corruptions to happen.

If government pumps in money to Wall street, then they will also have to regulate these banks and limit foreign ownership to a very minimum. For example; If Argentina has 15% equity, with voting rights in XYZ bank and American government owns 25% of it but on the diplomatic front is putting sanction on Venezuela, Argentina, by virtue of treaties with Venezuela could turn around and frustrate America's interest in XYZ bank.

The best option for moving forward is to slow down, glance back, clean up bad elements in Wall street, change mindset, reassess the political trends around the world and use the report to formulate a concise vision that will resucitate Wall street. As I said earlier, if the situation is so bad that something needs to be done immediately, then that something should be a negotiations for short term guarantees from the World Bank or the IMF.

The current proposal for government bailout is a disaster waiting to happen and it could have an effect on USA like the aftermath of the Soviet breakdown in the 80s.


Campaignwise, the plan will be more devastating and defeating for Obama than it would for McCain. The reason is because Barack has put his horse ahead of the wagon by promising and raising too much expectations against practical principles that he is now heralding as the best practice in a stormy situation. He is unconsciously defeating his own platform agenda.


Wall street and his opponents will not miss that point, they will bash him with it repeatedly when he becomes President and frustrate his vision for all things benevolent in his speeches on American idealism.

@Post,

Wealth and management of wealth demands discipline and accountability.

If you have a restaurant, proper accounting discipline demands that when you bring your family and or your friends in to eat and you are footing the bill, that you pay the cashier. True its your restaurant and the money is coming back to your pocket anyway but when your subordinates notice that you are very disciplined in the way you run your business, then it becomes easy for them to toe the line and when the money does not tally up at the end of the day you will have a voice to ask questions and you will have the will to face your staff and demand accountability. Nobody will say the money is coming short because Oga family don come chop lunch everyday of the week. Thats your leadership over your workstaff, laying good example.

Over the years, Bush and Cheney had systemically dodged accountability. When questioned on issues that demand public transparency they shrug it off as executive privilege to avoid public scrutiny. Over the years, when business, security and administrative leaders are seated in front of a congressional investigation and on public camera, instead of telling the truth, they dismiss their guilt to inability to recall or forgetfullness or loss of material evidence.

Congress is a balance for the White House and also has power of prosecution to demand accountability for public interest and to uphold the power of the people to seek fairness and justice whenever the rights of the people have been violated. On both accounts it has failed. The Republican led congress failed, the Democrat led congress failed.

Business leaders have followed in the footsteps of Bush/Cheney and became prodigal with the assets entrusted and invested in their corporations. They started to modify their quarterly and annual profit margins. They will release their audit reports and then turn around and withdraw it as incorrect and modify the numbers and re-release it with a far worse performance than it was in the initial release. The auditor, instead of being fired for incompetence got paid millions of dollars for a job well done. The CFO, instead of being demoted for incompetence got rewarded a fat end of year bonus check. The CEO, instead of getting the boot, got a fat bonus check and an enormous stock option. At the Annual General Meeting, the shareholders were told that the company performed below expectation and so the dividends will be reinvested for capital growth, so no payout. On each table at the meeting, there is gift baskets containing goodies and maybe at most, a wrist watch, token of appreciation from the CEO thanking the shareholders for their loyalty and dedication to American greatness. Sometimes these gift baskets are not enough to go around and the attendees have to fight over it. Total value of the basket and all the goodies in it, less than $1,000.

Congress sat there and never questioned these business leaders on this bad practice of modifying and correcting and falsifying the account records. If they were brought to the chambers for probe they got away free under the advise of lawyers to claim that they cannot recall events or that the damaging email memo in evidence was not a policy or an action tem but rather a reminder note.

Business leaders on Wall street played hide and seek with congress over gross mismanagement of billions of dollars of invested life savings in 401k, in bonds, stocks,, etc. To make matters worse, the business leaders pumped a lot of money into lobbying. They paid ex-congress members, relatives of congress members and their close allies, big money for sponsorship and endorsements. While these business leaders stole and mismanage trillions of dollars, the lobbyists massaged congress with fat privileges and sealed their voice from speaking against wall street.

Wall street is not dead. Wall street is playing one of its hide and seek game with congress again and its a false alarm to be crying for help or the worst will happen. I bet you if congress hands-off, Wall street will readjust and regain its strength. Democrat led Congress, for all their accusations against Republican led congress have not done anything different to bring about accountability in the business sector.

So now, they will take this $700b and give it to Wall street. Meanwhile, the mindset of Wall street has not changed from what it was when it mismanaged trillions of its own money. Suddenly we expect them to now change in their ways and manage public money put in their trust. What measures are in place to effect this new expectation in accountability?

Now, lets look at another thing totally different but even worse in its nature, if it were to happen. Let us assume that Wall street and Banks are bailed out for credit solvency. What would happen if next week the Telecomms companies cry that they are in financial problem? You definitely cannot let telecomms go belly up can you? What happens if airlines come the upper week and say they are in financial problem and are ready to pack it in? What happens if the food supply industry or the hospitals say they are in financial problems?

You let the telecomms go belly up, then you have lost all ability to secure the country or communicate. You let the airlines go belly up then you will choke trade and commerce and increase traffic on the interstate, demand for gas will go up, with insufficient supply price will go up, accident rate will jump up, more vehicles will get stuck on interstate, hotels will be highly in demand shooting up rates for lodging. If you let the food supply industry go belly up, food prices will jump, families will seek alternatives thereby increasing gap in the food safety chain and resulting in increased disease and illness. If the hospitals go belly up, dramatic results to millions of patients that are on frequent medical watch and attention, this will shootup cost of medicine, leading to underground practices in unsafe and uncontrolled enviroments, deaths and more spread of illnesses and diseases.

The best thing for congress to do at this point, . . leave Wall street alone, it will readjust. If the situation is so dire that it must get a lifeline, go to the fucking World Bank or IMF and get some guarantees. Leave public funds alone.

It is very insulting to hear them say they are taking over bad assets with $700B. I dont care if its $100, there is nothing in economic principles called "bad asset". Thats a fucking spin to put blindfold over taxpayers eyes.

When you operate a profit and loss statement, you don't categorize your net worth into "Good Assets" and "Bad Assets". Thats bleeped up!! You line them up as "Assets" and "Liabilities".

If you tell Americans you are going to pour $700B to soak up "Liabilities" on Wall Street, Americans will show up in Washington with their shotguns. The politicians know this and thats why they fucking call it "Bad Assets".

I told you all, Americans have been reconditioned by TV programming into a passive and docile society when they started showing them Reality shows that have no close semblance to reality. They got twisted!

Now the congress is telling them Wall street has some "Reality Assets" that they did a screwy job managing with their own money but dont worry, we would pour your money into it and pretty soon Wall street will manage yours very well and in fact return big profit to you in appreciation of the favor, My fellow Americans just sit there and say "awkayy" !

Some are even getting mad already that congress failed to approve the money that is needed to buy the "Real Assets".

Shit, I would love to write a book on this one, damn!

Hillary Clinton tried to use this argument during the primaries, but election watchers just laughed it away.

During the Democrat's primaries, Hillary called on super delegates to vote as they liked (fine) and not necessarily follow the will of the people (not fine). She further stated that the pledged delegates were not bounded by law to vote for either candidate

Let me tell you why it is a failed argument:
1. [s]It fails to recognize the power of traditional practices, which go beyond all constitutional/legal arguments.[/s]
2. [s]There has been no known case where an elector decided not to vote for the party he/she pledged to vote[/s].

Hillary planned to throw the bath water and the baby all out . . . the party elders cautioned her for the sake of the party to back down. The train was already in motion and she had to intervene and put brakes on it during their convention. Her husband is still very upset about it and this is why up until last week in his remarks you can still hear a shadow of resentment for the party and for Obama.

You see, this is why most times I prefer to express my opinion in few words and not elaborate and I have found that even with ample elaboration I still have to follow up with line by line narrative explaining the point. As I have said before, a lot of people in here have suddenly become politicians courtesy of Obama and its difficult to explain to them in one page the chronology of events that took 2 decades to blossom, they wouldnt get it. Not because they are unintelligent but because they are immersed midstream into a scenario that has produced many offsprings and they are staring the great grandchild in the face and equating that with familiarity with the patriarch, the Godfather himself.

Richy, I crossed out both of your itemized points simply because you are predicting traditions and customary behaviors in a very untraditional and uncustomary event. You say there has never been a case where an elector has defected. Has there ever been a case where a black man has been the primary Presidential candidate of his party? If we should go traditional, then white American sentiments will rebell against that notion of a black man in the white house. That, is your recipe for defectors to behave irrationally and untraditionally. When Hillary laid claim to that notion during the primary it was noticed. She particularly mentioned Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Those are the same states where Republicans stated last week that Obama is wasting his time and money. They know that McCain is behind in opinion polls. They trust their grassroot evangelicals in those states than they trust polls. You only have to look 4 years back and you will understand why _ the election of 2004 between Bush and Kerry. Kerry was way ahead of Bush 6 weeks to election but was far behind him by sunset on November 4th.

There are many elements Listen, up until December 15th, Obama must continue to pacify the Clintons as he is doing now. If he makes the mistake and cause an upset within her rank of loyals they could either defect or refuse to cast electoral ballot. Its true they may not defect but if they dont vote then he could still loose. Beside that, there are die hard card carrying white democrats that would simply stay home or vote for Obama's opponent on 4th but those die hards are part of the controls that are embedded in the poll numbers in favor of Obama. Again, traditional predictions in untraditional event. Comparing apples to oranges!

Legry,

Do me a favor. . . post the disclaimer that went along with that opinion poll, please. . .

Did CNN not say that the poll is flawed, and that its a representation only of a handful of those who watched the debate last night? So if they give the weekend for people to catch up on it and then repoll on Monday, maybe the statistics will come out differently. Do you agree?

On November 4th we will turn out for popular vote. After that, there are two more important dates:

December 15th, when electors meet at State level and vote for the electoral college tally

January 20th, when the new President is inaugurated.

There is no Federal Law or Constitutional requirement that compels electors to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote. Now you know, any authority that is not addressed by the Constitution of the United States is generally delegated to the States. So some States do assume authority on the issue of electoral college votes. The appointment of the electors are done at State level anyway and the candidates are voted at that level as well. As we are speaking, the parties have already elected who their State level electors will be.

Let us assume that Barak Obama carries Mississippi in popular vote on November 4th. Mississipi has 6 electoral votes only. So then, Democrats won Mississippi and that means their 6 electors from Mississipi will vote at electoral college. Since McCain lost it, Republicans' 6 electors from Mississiipi do not count.

So on December 15th they meet for the electoral college vote and 2 out of that 6 electors decide that they do not like Obama. They still must be allowed to vote. Depending on the party by-laws and rules, only two things can happen (1) Democratic party disqualify their vote and Obama end up with 4 instead of 6 votes in that State. (2) The party replace those two with substitute electors to get the full 6 votes for Obama. In addition to those options, the two could be prosecuted if their particpating State is among those who, as I mentioned earlier has assumed authority where the Constitution has been silence on legal requirements in the electoral college. If none of the fail-safe loops is blocked, then Obama will indeed have an irreplaceable loss of 2 electoral votes.

There is rumor that in States where Obama wins, expect to see some feet shuffle to a deficit.


Below is a list of States with no Legal Requirement. Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

Out of these 24 States, Obama is favored to win only 9.


States with legal Requirements or Pledges. Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA - 9 Electoral Votes
ALASKA - 3 Electoral Votes
CALIFORNIA - 55 Electoral Votes
COLORADO - 9 Electoral Votes
CONNECTICUT - 7 Electoral Votes
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - 3 Electoral Votes
FLORIDA - 27 Electoral Votes
HAWAII - 4 Electoral Votes
MAINE - 4 Electoral Votes
MARYLAND - 10 Electoral Votes
MASSACHUSETTS - 12 Electoral Votes
MICHIGAN - 17 Electoral Votes
MISSISSIPPI - 6 Electoral Votes
MONTANA - 3 Electoral Votes
NEBRASKA - 5 Electoral Votes
NEVADA - 5 Electoral Votes
NEW MEXICO - 5 Electoral Votes
NORTH CAROLINA - 15 Electoral Votes
OHIO - 20 Electoral Votes
OKLAHOMA - 7 Electoral Votes
OREGON - 7 Electoral Votes
SOUTH CAROLINA - 8 Electoral Votes
VERMONT - 3 Electoral Votes
VIRGINIA - 13 Electoral Votes
WASHINGTON - 11 Electoral Votes
WISCONSIN - 10 Electoral Votes
WYOMING - 3 Electoral Votes


[size=15pt]So you get the picture? [/size]

Ibime,

I'm surprised that you would invite my opinion on this. You know what you are going to hear from me already, but in case you did not, I will go ahead and tell you. S-T-R-A-T-E-G-Y

Lower expectations for her, make her the rookie that she is. The election is not going to be won on her intelligence but rather on her emotions and sentiments. You see, this is what you all are failing to realize. Why bother ratcheting up her competencies now, wastefully so, when you really do not need it to win the White House?

What John McCain need to win the white house is Obama. He got it. Obama and his Pastor Jeremiah Wright already delivered that weapon long ago. Now they have him sitting on his own eject seat and its already latched to a catapult mechanism waiting to launch him off the platform in October. They are accomodating his arrogance because it is necessary that he makes a fool of himself before departure. That way he wouldnt have the guts to come back in 20012.

Ibime, open your eyes and look again at the electoral votes. When that time comes I will say more about it. But for now, do me a favor start tracking all talks about electoral votes. You remember the sentiments around SuperDelegates during the Dems primaries? Multiply that by 4, thats what you will get in this general election.

When that fucking Putin or one of his proteges somewhere around the globe set it off, the question will be asked of Americans: who do you want to lead America in a face off against Putin or Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad? It might surprise you that a war is more likely to erupt between now and election day than it is likely that Obama will become the President of US.

On another point, I hear a bunch of Dems in here repeating some nonsense about Palin is only a heartbeat away from the Presidency and she is unfit to be President. Whose heart are you all talking about? McCain's heart?

Let me tell you, in America if you are talking about a President dying in office, it is triple likely that it will be a liberal President getting shot by an assassin than one caused by a natural consequence. Obama, as a black man has less optimism to complete the first term of office, resulting from racial hatred, than McCain has succumbing to death in old age. So if you all want to talk about succession, you need to be planning one for Obama in his first term of office.