Liverpool FC Forum

[Sabre]

Right, I don't know in England but here in Spain the elections are being followed with interest. While most of the left wing in my country is not very pro american, I'm not against them, I just think that they're a huge country with huge achievements and huge mistakes.

I remember that a year ago or so Joe told me that there were little chances of Obama winning because if I remember correctly he could never win in some key states.

But the latest news we have around here is that he can win. Is that so?

Also, I'd like Joe, Ariahzmad or any of our resident americans clarify this video for me. This is the kind of video that some left winged press use to generate opinion against USA, but I prefer a n american mate explains me what's going on there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-6iP3T0P28

According to a newspaper here, that woman is arrested because she yelled something meanwhile "god bless america" was being chanted. Is that so?

I cannot figure that out from the video, I just see a pathetic scene in which 4 police men  are needed to arrest a woman, but I wanted to know if one guy can be arrested for yelling during the "god bless america" song.

[SupitsJonF]

It sounds to me like they are chanting a.s.s.hole, which is common during sporting events when someone in the crowd is ruining it for everyone else, or one of the players pulls a vicious foul. 

I didn't hear god bless America being chanted by the crowd, but I think she was arrested for fighting, not for yelling.

[Bad Bob]

Right, I don't know in England but here in Spain the elections are being followed with interest. While most of the left wing in my country is not very pro american, I'm not against them, I just think that they're a huge country with huge achievements and huge mistakes.

I remember that a year ago or so Joe told me that there were little chances of Obama winning because if I remember correctly he could never win in some key states.

But the latest news we have around here is that he can win. Is that so?

Also, I'd like Joe, Ariahzmad or any of our resident americans clarify this video for me. This is the kind of video that some left winged press use to generate opinion against USA, but I prefer a n american mate explains me what's going on there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-6iP3T0P28

According to a newspaper here, that woman is arrested because she yelled something meanwhile "god bless america" was being chanted. Is that so?

I cannot figure that out from the video, I just see a pathetic scene in which 4 police men  are needed to arrest a woman, but I wanted to know if one guy can be arrested for yelling during the "god bless america" song.

Hard to tell what kicked it all off, what was said to the cop etc.  But, the context of the situation is undoubtedly important: two Red Sox fans sitting in amongst a majority of NY Yankee fans (their most hated rivals) at Yankee stadium.  It's the equivalent of a couple of Mancs coming to Anfield, starting some sort of trouble on the Kop and then getting in the stewards faces who are looking to kick them out.  I think people who are trying to turn this into an issue about civil liberties and the power of the police are probably making way too big a deal of things.  It looked to me like cops were trying to keep the peace during a tense situation at a baseball game and weren't about to stand for any from one fan.

[Sabre]

Hmmm, the context of being rival fans is indeed important.

I'm all for liberties and all that, but I hate it when someone tries to twist a situation. From the video, I couldn't figure out much, thanks for that.

[JoeTerp]

Look very much like Obama is going to win actually

Whoever got the democratic nomination was always going to have a huge edge because of how poorly Bush has done. And early on Hillary Clinton was the only known quantity and was riding mostly on the sense that here winning the election was innevitable and that it would be pointless for voters to vote for any of the other candidates because their vote would be "wasted."  BIG problem in America where people want to pick the winner instead of voting with thier heart    this is why no 3rd party candidates are ever taken seriously, plus the combination of the media "controlling" the political conversation.

As far as the state by state breakdown, Clinton beat Obama in most of the states that are going to be close between the mostly mainland "Red" republican states, and the "blue" costal demographic states. Despite Obama being more liberal on most fronts compared to Clinton, he will probably still have an edge over McCain in the border states because everything is so Anti-Bush and no matter how hard McCain tries to distance himself from Bush, he is still going to have an ® next to his name in the voting both.

A lot of the talk however is why is Obama not dominating in the polls by more? so maybe it will still be close.





I think I will be voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.

[Sabre]

In the international scene Obama would be much more welcome and it would help to improve America's image, but I guess that is irrelevant for the American voter?

I'd like to know your reasons for being unhappy for Obama winning, is it because he represents the "elitist left wingers that like to tell what's wrong?" you mentioned the other day? because of you think his economy program won't be good enough? more taxes?

BTW, I like you voting for the third option. In my young democracy we used to have 18 parties in the parliament, but in the last two decades everything has gone "a la america" that is, two big parties.

[LFC2007]

Elections over there are gaudy beyond; fancy venues, upbeat rock music of sorts, and thousands of smarmy arsed tw@ts holding flags and screaming 'USA, USA'   

[JoeTerp]

In the international scene Obama would be much more welcome and it would help to improve America's image, but I guess that is irrelevant for the American voter?

I'd like to know your reasons for being unhappy for Obama winning, is it because he represents the "elitist left wingers that like to tell what's wrong?" you mentioned the other day? because of you think his economy program won't be good enough? more taxes?

BTW, I like you voting for the third option. In my young democracy we used to have 18 parties in the parliament, but in the last two decades everything has gone "a la america" that is, two big parties.

Obama is all dreamy idealistic talk, which I might be keen to if it wasn't against all my principles as well. Obama is like an American version of a Marxist, and he is elitist as well in that he thinks that everybody should strive for his values.

As a Libertarian, I want the government as far away from my everyday life as possible. I don't want the government holding my hand nor holding me back.  And I want to be able to be free to live by my own values, and want other to live by theirs as long as people's freedoms and rights are not stepped on.  IF I want to go into my house and (shoot heroin into my arms/have gay sex/ worship the devil) why should other citizens care?

Also, in practice, the government is extremely slow and not cost effective in doing anything in comparison to the market. In theory, the government should be because they can operate on a grander economy of scale, and they are not worried about making profit for its shareholders, but because of corruption or the costs taken to help prevent corruption and the lack of accountability, taxpayer money just gets wasted.

[JoeTerp]

Elections over there are gaudy beyond; fancy venues, upbeat rock music of sorts, and thousands of smarmy arsed tw@ts holding flags and screaming 'USA, USA'   

don't remind me. Its a shame because for a long time we had the greatest political system (IMO) the world has ever seen. True checks and balances between the three branches, States had their own power to make their own laws, and Americans could choose freely which state that they wanted to live in. And elections had real debates

Lincoln-Douglas

of course there has always been the press trying to make everything fanatical and extreme mud slinging amongst opponents. I guess that will never change though.

[Sabre]

Interesting.

As a Libertarian, I want the government as far away from my everyday life as possible. I don't want the government holding my hand nor holding me back.  And I want to be able to be free to live by my own values, and want other to live by theirs as long as people's freedoms and rights are not stepped on.  IF I want to go into my house and (shoot heroin into my arms/have gay sex/ worship the devil) why should other citizens care?

Curiously the "libertarian" ideology is similar to the same concept I know here.

The way you put it it sounds nice. But, applied to a certain extent, it might be dangerous, here's my reasoning.

If I understand you correctly for instance the government shouldn't provide free education to the americans? you'd receive a fine education because your family worked hard in the past and that would allow you to receive it. Fair enough. But what about the ones that aren't that lucky? Wouldn't that lead to a country with children that don't know to read?

At the end, having a country with 23% that doesn't know to read (and that would happen if no education is financed by the government) would affect the country and ultimately you.

[JoeTerp]

Interesting.

As a Libertarian, I want the government as far away from my everyday life as possible. I don't want the government holding my hand nor holding me back.  And I want to be able to be free to live by my own values, and want other to live by theirs as long as people's freedoms and rights are not stepped on.  IF I want to go into my house and (shoot heroin into my arms/have gay sex/ worship the devil) why should other citizens care?

Curiously the "libertarian" ideology is similar to the same concept I know here.

The way you put it it sounds nice. But, applied to a certain extent, it might be dangerous, here's my reasoning.

If I understand you correctly for instance the government shouldn't provide free education to the americans? you'd receive a fine education because your family worked hard in the past and that would allow you to receive it. Fair enough. But what about the ones that aren't that lucky? Wouldn't that lead to a country with children that don't know to read?

At the end, having a country with 23% that doesn't know to read (and that would happen if no education is financed by the government) would affect the country and ultimately you.

I will answer in two ways

1) In America, the federal government actually has no legal right under the constitution to control education. In fact, Reagan wanted to get rid of the department of education. Education should be controlled by the STATES themselves. Then people can move to where they like the education system that fits their values.

2) As a more anarcho-capitalist (which is closer to my actual views but more extreme)  . . . .  actually looking at the official party platform, the main goals of the libertarian party are a little more extreme than I though (and thus more in line with my beliefs)

Party education platform

pretty much allowing people to choose which school to send their kids to instead of being forced to send you kid to the closest public school. Without the red tape the cost of education goes way down, and parents will have more money because they wont be paying taxes for education so they can spend it directly on the school of their choice.  Also, I would think the market would open up for a lot more cheaper private school options for parents in lower income areas.  Plus, without the requirements to make all kids go to school, only the students that want to learn will go, and there will be less need to worry about chasing down kids that skip school (BIG PROBLEM in Baltimore and I guess most big cities)

[dawson99]

i backed mccain about a year ago at 33/1 after seing him coming across brilliantly on the daily show with jon stewart... and i hope he wins. he has the background and experience to deal with more things i reckon... but hes not popular with the celebs so what chance has he got?

[NiftyNeil]

I think the whole thing has been a circus this year. The campaign for the nominations went on for ages, it's been an absolute joke. The whole of the democtrats have been split fiercely over the nominations. It's been all out war between Clinton and Obama, and they're fighting for the same team. Now Obama has the task of winning back supporters of his own party as well as winning over the republican states and borderlines. McCain has the simple task of keeping the repulicans happy, and picking up the die-hard Clinton followers.
While I think Obama is the best candidate, I can see the Americans playing it safe with McCain - the all American hero. The nomination race has been too bloody for the democrats.

[dawson99]

doesnt help when the man obama put as his 'second' is the same guy who 6 months ago on air was saying that obama wasnt ready to be president due to experience, meanwhile mccain gets some nice bird which is good for the lib republicans. add in the people who just dont want a black president and this could start to get nasty

[mistyred]

People are frightened of an unknown force, if you hold people back and all of a sudden they come to the for front of things you will sh1t yourself.

I personally don't care who wins what but i can tell you that after the history America have with oppression with non Anglo races right wing America will be literally kacking it, just as they would if a Jew became prime candidate for president.

Let's not get it twisted "America" has a history of pushing aside anything that doesn't belong  but i guess we will have to wait and see if it pulls out all the stops this time.