Is this a Republican tradition of some sort?

---

he's a devil worshiper !!

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

No, he is just old. I've seen stuff like that on America's Most Funniest Video show. Only there, an old lady was trying to make a call, apparently. I am not kidding... Give the guy a brake. After all, whether you like it or not he will be our next president, and that is not a joke.

---

Evgeny:

After all, whether you like it or not he will be our next president, and that is not a joke.

Типун тебе на язык.

---

Well, i will not vote for him for sure, but regardless of this, 412, he has already won. Sad isn't it.

Zagnanykh loshadei' prestrelivaut, nepravda-li? That what I think about Obama and Hillary.

---

Откуда такое?  Или ты знаешь что-то что мы не знаем?

---

McCain won't win.  He's too old.  He's so old, he is no longer sharp.  He is like your grandpa that sits on the porch, rocking in a rocking chair, talking about how much better things were in his day, and complaining about everything.  but he won't be able to argue his points cuz he is old and senile.  He is worse than Bush - at least Bush had some new ideas - fight a Holy War in the Middle East and create one big democracy.  lol.  Well, it was a new idea, but unrealistic.  oh well.

Obama will win.  I'm voting for Obama.  If just to piss off the establishment.  If only because it's our one best  bet for ridding ourselves, for a short time, of the lobbyists and special interest groups that have bled this country dry.  Let me say that again - it's time to put America first.  If Obama wants to start with the poor, the 'whatever', fine.  Just stop putting America last.  I'm starting to think there is a new economic theory at work here.  Yes, "Trickle-up Economics".  Trickle-down economics worked before every rich ass*hole in this country decided to make even more money by moving jobs offshore, and importing cheap imports made by other countries with more margin.  Result?  $0 trickle-down.  We MUST keep the wealth in this country, and so let's spend the money on the working class, and let them grow in spending power to build up (trickle-up) the economy.

Just a thought....

---

"Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable."

James Bond:

McCain won't win.  He's too old.  He's so old, he is no longer sharp.  He is like your grandpa that sits on the porch, rocking in a rocking chair, talking about how much better things were in his day, and complaining about everything.  but he won't be able to argue his points cuz he is old and senile.  He is worse than Bush - at least Bush had some new ideas - fight a Holy War in the Middle East and create one big democracy.  lol.  Well, it was a new idea, but unrealistic.  oh well.

Is it some kind of sarcasm? 

---

I actually admire the guy. He is the most patriotic among the other candidates (Obama and Hillary). Did you know that he can't raise his hands above because his shoulder bones were so damaged by the vietnamese who brutally tortured him. He was and is a good soldier. It's just I don't think he is good enough to be a politician who'd take this country any further than G.W. Bush did. The world has changed so much in the last decade; we need a president with new mentality and stronger principals. As much as I respect John McCain, I don't see him as a politician who is strict to his principals and has strong ideas about what we need to change in order to make our economy better. I guess that's what differentiate a soldier from a politician.

---

412:

Откуда такое?  Или ты знаешь что-то что мы не знаем?

Intuitziya... Vse okhlodeet k vyboram, i vsya eta eforiya s Obamoi' tozhe. 

---

Wasn't Reagan abt the same age in taking his second term?  I may be wrong.. 

I gotta see who McCain's VP is before I say his death in office is worse than either Hillary or Obama - alive.

As far as "not sharp", yeah that's a potential issue, but I am looking at the 3 choices left, and I find none of them particularly sharp. When Obama/Clinton act a fool, you just don't attribute it to age. He is significantly sharper than Bush, and its not like we are talking about monarchy/dictatorship, he is not going to accidentally invade the wrong country and shoot off some nukes at France, we have a GOVERNMENT.  I don't believe Bush made any significant decisions like that on his own either - his first term was run by an oligarchy of people whom MCain hates and wanted fired.  W#ay before things went wrong.  Way before even Hillary opened her mouth and things became so obvious.

If there is a "change" needed, its a change from that oligarchy, any talk of fundamental "change" by a populace who in their majority believe they live in the best country in the world, is counterproductive, and a dangerous overreaction.  Why not a targeted "change" of what's actually wrong?  For example, electing inexperienced ideological puppets into office, who are patriotic to their ideology rather than their nation?  Observing the failure of almost every instance of governemnt-run programs (both in the US and in world history), and wanting more of it?  Increrasing spending in the face of record debt?  Raising taxes into a bad economy?  Divisiveness along racial lines?  I could go on an on, you get the point - there is plenty of "change" needed.  AWAY from what Obama represents.

And those are the just things we know about him, or recently found out because he got "caught".  I think he is much, much worse than what we know.  On what grounds or histprical basis does anyone think that the far left ideology would have been better in the last decade in either internal affairs, economy, or foreign policy?  When was the last time it was?   From a perspective of the 90% of the population that is to the right of him ideologically - never.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

P.S.  a big part of my reasoning is also the appointment of judges - it may be a busy 4 years on that front.  No one ever talks about that branch of government, yet it has the greatest potential of liberalizing us into an even more dysfuntional version of Western Europe, because it is not subject to public opinion or term limits like the other two branches.   The Supreme Court is the main reason why we should NEVER elect extremist presidents, even when tempted by myopia of only looking at recent events.  The pendulum swung too far to the right with Bush, it's now swinging too far to the left with Obama. 

We are going through an era of "pick your dysfunction".  A well-known historical situation that destroys superpowers and brings down empires if it goes on too long, or coincides with dangerous times where a sober-minded approach becomes more valuable than ideological pursuit of mind-altering partisanship.  Like right now. 

You really want another president whose approval rating chart will look like Bush's?  Elect an ideologist.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

Wasn't Reagan abt the same age in taking his second term?  I may be wrong..

Yes, in his second term it was, and you know he wasn't the same as he was during his first term. His own staff had concerns about his health and decisions. Reagan had developed symptoms of Alzheimer's disease during that time, the disease that eventually killed him.

I gotta see who McCain's VP is before I say his death in office is worse than either Hillary or Obama - alive.

But we choose first the president and then the vice president. Isn't it? )

As far as "not sharp", yeah that's a potential issue, but I am looking at the 3 choices left, and I find none of them particularly sharp. When Obama/Clinton act a fool, you just don't attribute it to age.

They may seem to act like fools because they undergo extreme competition between each other... something that McCain hasn't had in this election yet. The republican primaries were considerably short. I expected more fight from Mitt Romney, who was punched under belt several times by McCain (Florida primaries is a good example), and who might become his VP. :)

I don't believe Bush made any significant decisions like that on his own either - his first term was run by an oligarchy of people whom MCain hates and wanted fired.  W#ay before things went wrong.  Way before even Hillary opened her mouth and things became so obvious.

Apparently, Bush didn't like them either since it was him who fired them. McCain has nothing to do with it.

Incidentally, is Bush's second term any better than his first one? )

If there is a "change" needed, its a change from that oligarchy, any talk of fundamental "change" by a populace who in their majority believe they live in the best country in the world, is counterproductive, and a dangerous overreaction.  Why not a targeted "change" of what's actually wrong?  For example, electing inexperienced ideological puppets into office, who are patriotic to their ideology rather than their nation?  Observing the failure of almost every instance of governemnt-run programs (both in the US and in world history), and wanting more of it?  Increrasing spending in the face of record debt?  Raising taxes into a bad economy?

Agree 100%. Yes, but remember, Reagan started his office with raising taxes and economy was in bad shape after J. Carter.

---

Evgeny:

Wasn't Reagan abt the same age in taking his second term?  I may be wrong..

Yes, in his second term it was, and you know he wasn't the same as he was during his first term. His own staff had concerns about his health and decisions. Reagan had developed symptoms of Alzheimer's disease during that time, the disease that eventually killed him.

There was a special over the weekend I think on CNN abt how sick (including mentally) many of American presidents were.   McCain is nowhere near that list.  Any older president can get alzheimers anytime.  I mean, I understand the argument, but I have to look at the 3 (or 2) available candidates, and vote based on what matters to me.  If there was a candidate identical to McCain but 10 years younger, this would matter.  Otherwise it does not.  And it didn't with Reagan.  Or we would have Mondale or Dukakis, or whatever jackass Reagan ran against in 1984, I don't remember.  And thank god it wasn't

Evgeny:

I gotta see who McCain's VP is before I say his death in office is worse than either Hillary or Obama - alive.

But we choose first the president and then the vice president. Isn't it? )

Not sure what you mean.  When you vote in the general election, you vote for the entire ticket silmutaneously.

Evgeny:

As far as "not sharp", yeah that's a potential issue, but I am looking at the 3 choices left, and I find none of them particularly sharp. When Obama/Clinton act a fool, you just don't attribute it to age.

They may seem to act like fools because they undergo extreme competition between each other... something that McCain hasn't had in this election yet. The republican primaries were considerably short. I expected more fight from Mitt Romney, who was punched under belt several times by McCain (Florida primaries is a good example), and who might become his VP. :)

I don't know, the Republican primary seemed a lot more contentius and heated to me. Either way, plenty of chances/opportunities to do/say stupid sh*t for everyone.  McCain, throughout his career has shown superior, above average judgement.  SIGNIFICANTLY above average.  We have short memories, so lets look at the last 8 years.  He predicted everything, was right about everything, took unpopular positions, criticized his own party, allied with the opposition when reasonable.  That's exactly the character of our most successful presidents.  And the opposite of our bad presidents (majority) who are basically nothing but special interests in the White House, who temporarily fool the public that something is best for the country, without going into details or providing substance.  Sound familiar? :)   

Evgeny:

I don't believe Bush made any significant decisions like that on his own either - his first term was run by an oligarchy of people whom MCain hates and wanted fired.  W#ay before things went wrong.  Way before even Hillary opened her mouth and things became so obvious.

Apparently, Bush didn't like them either since it was him who fired them. McCain has nothing to do with it.

That's not correct, Bush loved them and did not want to fire anyone until pressure reached critical levels, Pelosi first uttered the word "impeachment" , and McCain led the opposition within Bush's OWN party, which began before things went bad in Iraq.  Before "mission accomplished".  Sure Obama didn't support the war altogether, but that was because he is a part of the establishment whose job it was not to support it.  Or anything else done by republicans.  If they are right, they got lucky, if they are wrong, they can live with that too, but lets not pretend any sort of judgement is used by these kinds of people. Hillary, by the way, voted for the war, for the same reason - HER establishment (moderate majority of democrats) voted for it and opposed it only when the polls did.  These are NOT qualities of successful presidencies.  Never were and never will be.

Evgeny:

Incidentally, is Bush's second term any better than his first one? )

I don't really have an opinion nor do I care   I just can't wait til he is gone.

Evgeny:

If there is a "change" needed, its a change from that oligarchy, any talk of fundamental "change" by a populace who in their majority believe they live in the best country in the world, is counterproductive, and a dangerous overreaction.  Why not a targeted "change" of what's actually wrong?  For example, electing inexperienced ideological puppets into office, who are patriotic to their ideology rather than their nation?  Observing the failure of almost every instance of governemnt-run programs (both in the US and in world history), and wanting more of it?  Increrasing spending in the face of record debt?  Raising taxes into a bad economy?

Agree 100%. Yes, but remember, Reagan started his office with raising taxes and economy was in bad shape after J. Carter.

That doesnlt make it ok :)

I mean, Reagan had reasons.  We can go into detail.  Do we have these reasons now?  Most economists would tell you that revenues decrease when tax rate increases.  Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong.  But all such decisions should be on case by case basis, by people who have track records of sound judgement, consult economists, have an aversion to deficits and debt, and preferably not addicted to the pervasive expansion of governemnt as an ideology independent of macroeconomics. 

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский

By the way, if I don't like the VP pick (and by "I" - I mean the swing vote - which decides all elections) - if it is Romney or some other Bush conservative, Obama will be given another look by EVERY moderate currently supporting McCain.  Even by me

McCain needs to find himself a moderate (must have) intellectual (a plus) - either specializing in foreign policy (i hope), but in economics might be ok too.  Otherwise a LOT of his current support goes "poof".  He'll have something similar to the Bush approval rating.

---

________________________________________
"Я это понимаю на рациональном уровне, но не могу принять на эмоциональном" --Бизнесмен Борис Березовский