next president

who do you prefer? curious to know what the outside world thinks.

I prefer Senator McCain, but it's tough to get out from where he is.

Now Obama - he's African, he's a new kid on the block. It'd be at least interesting. Now we all know Hilary's shit, it's going to be the 90s, vol. 2. 'Nuf.

I agree with Ian. I feel real bad that McCain didn't win the presidential primaries in 2000, I think he would have handled things way better than Bush.

Of course I think (as I've mentioned before) that the race betweeen obama and hillary is only for show. The plan is for hilary as president and obama a vice. Then they are an unstoppable force. (obama for vice, since he is young to end his political career... not to mention that would be a plan for 16 years of democrate presidents).

The only way for republican to beat such a strong force is to pick a candidate that doesn't represent the classic 'rich, powerful, white male' that has been 'screwing up' DC in the public's eyes. That throws out Romney and Guilliani.... highly religious would be a turn off as well (as Bush has been spewing off religious stuff for 8 years and the population as a whole is tired of it) so that eliminates Huckabee.

The only one that could take on clinton/obama ticket would have to be McCain.... but does he have the power to get voters to beat a first woman president/first black vice ticket?

while i find mccain a very respectable and honorable man, i couldn't vote for him. He would stay in iraq for ever and he is against reproductive rights.

Who is this man blue eyed boy who wants to be this worthy cause of human kind

....might be John Edwards w/ Hillary as his running mate if he gets the Dem ticket.

Neither. Lux Interior for President, and Lou Reed for V.P! Now that's the way to get people interested in politics again.

(News has just came on mid-post saying Obama's won a landslide in South Carolina.)

MIMX! wrote: Neither. Lux Interior for President, and Lou Reed for V.P! Now that's the way to get people interested in politics again.

(News has just came on mid-post saying Obhma's won a landslide in South Carolina.)

Right.

Come on then, using your seemingly apparent infinite range of knowledge, why should Lou Reed be Vice President? Are you aware of his economic policy? Or are you just endorsing him becasue he has said something vaguely left wing in his time and you've ejaculated over that.

If that is the case, can I nominate Sarah Neufeld for Prime Minister of Canada?

Hope your enjoying your pathetic arse of an idiotic self following me about to post snide comments.

Away back to the "By Popular Request thread" because I'm going to re-post there.

Edit/PS's 'Cause The Infallible Pope fucked up the thread! "NASA a waste of money!" Doctor? please explain to the deluded pontiff.

pumped full of drugs (the only way to be) if you're genuinely interested in politics in your country/the world WSP US are the only genuine leaderless democratic party in the US. Even if you disagree with their view they are still thoughtful, intelligent, moral, and worth the effort.

Another Edited added PS: Caught Doctor? moonlighting, all the articles on the 1st WSP US page are by Dr Who! Always suspected he'd even more sense than he was letting on too!

I'm going for Obama. He is very approachable and really cares about uniting our country no matter what.

Obama is actually still likeable at this point and has avoided lowering himself to the lowest denominator so far, this is very unusual... Republicans are scared to death! And their best hope is a Mormon.

Hillary is so easy to dislike, or at least not like much... the Republicans want her to be the candidate soooooo bad so they can attack Bill and Hilldog without mercy, they love to hate the Clintons. If Republicans vent so much hatred and bile towards Obama they will appear too racist, and I think the majority will find this distasteful. The pundunts are already starting to switch some of their attacks to Obama by claiming he is unfaithful to the black community. Also, Obama's middle name is Hussein, they will make sure every learns that by November.

Please...not a woman

Andrès wrote: Please...not a woman

I have about the same sediment... only 'please not a democrate!'

EdelBrock wrote:

Andrès wrote: Please...not a woman

I have about the same sediment... only 'please not a democrate!'

Bloody hell, anti liberty (you hate liberals), AND anti democracy, sound like you're perfect material yourself Edel.

I am heartened by your claim that folks are sick of "god told me to steal their oil and kill their kids" crap. Maybe they'll stop the teaching of fairy stories in science class, and start funding NASA properly.

Well if we are going to get technical Cambo, all Americans are 'liberal' considering the government is formed on Locke's Liberalism... just cause a group calls themselves 'liberal' doesn't mean they are any closer to Locke's ideals (which actually fall more towards Republican thought). Democrates have no more democracy in them than a Republican

Its called marketing wordplay... kinda like the car Acura Integra.... helps make you feel all warm 'n cozy inside when you choose parties

Well in the USA, what baffles me... is there really a group of people who call themselves "liberals" and act in unison together? Where and who are these people? The Democratic Party has been mostly a lame joke lately but the "conservative" pundants claim there is this definite group of crazy "liberals" who have excessive control on society and the media. How do I know if I belong in this group? Am I a "liberal" because I don't totally agree with what these self-proclaimed "conservatives" proclaim? How can I join this "liberal" group if this is where I belong? Is there an initiation? The very idealistic concepts of freedom of speech and press and freedom of/from religion are pretty liberal ideas in themselves.

Certainly I don't see any difference between the "right" and "left" in moral behavior in everyday life. Some people are nicer and tend to be honest, others tend to lie and cheat. People on both left and right demographics often cheat on their spouses, some have abortions, some have same sex liasons, some cheat on their taxes, some cheat at work and in business, some screw over their friends, many are wasteful and selfish. Porn is very popular all over. Drugs are used/abused by rich or poor, or middle class.

To be quite honest I'm not sure where this tag of left-wingers being called 'liberal' came from... or really what it is suppose to signify. Looks like a conservative breeding?

But the lefties aren't much better... they love talking about doing away with Interest Groups... but anyone that has taken any college level government class knows that Interest groups are very seldom corrupt, and are a nessecity in a proper running government with short terms of office....

Rhetoric is rhetoric, and politicians (no matter the side) need it to get people to vote.... it makes people feel strong in voting for a side... so is rhetoric bad? I hate the crap, but then people probably wouldn't be voting as much if there wasn't some controversy.... it's kinda like BCD, it was all nice and quiet around here until Kershaw was kicked off.... hell even Marty came back to post more in two days than he did all last year!

Doctor start funding NASA properly.

WASTE. OF. MONEY.

DUBYA!

He will suspend the constitution, declare martial law, and proclaimed himself king of the United States, and later, the world!

Indeed!

Obama, for the fact that this man wants to repeal one of the most ridiculous laws passed during the Bush Administration -- the No Child Left Behind Act.

If you have ever taught in an urban school district or were a student, you know how ludicrous this law is. Basically, when a school doesn't perform up to standard (based on state-wide test scores in which the exams vary in each state), a school is put on some list labeling it under performing. When a school is in that category, students can transfer to a better performing school in the district. In a city like Philadelphia, this means that many better performing (not good, but not failing, either) are picking up students from these poor-performing schools and are getting overcrowded. Meanwhile, the badly performing schools lose funding.

This just goes to show how poorly our nation's education system is being run. Perform badly (and if you've ever been in an urban school district, text books from over a decade ago, old buildings, and disruptive kids are the norm) and you're punished. And no one tries to figure out what, exactly, doesn't work.

This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote: Obama, for the fact that this man wants to repeal one of the most ridiculous laws passed during the Bush Administration -- the No Child Left Behind Act.

If you have ever taught in an urban school district or were a student, you know how ludicrous this law is. Basically, when a school doesn't perform up to standard (based on state-wide test scores in which the exams vary in each state), a school is put on some list labeling it under performing. When a school is in that category, students can transfer to a better performing school in the district. In a city like Philadelphia, this means that many better performing (not good, but not failing, either) are picking up students from these poor-performing schools and are getting overcrowded. Meanwhile, the badly performing schools lose funding.

This just goes to show how poorly our nation's education system is being run. Perform badly (and if you've ever been in an urban school district, text books from over a decade ago, old buildings, and disruptive kids are the norm) and you're punished. And no one tries to figure out what, exactly, doesn't work.

I think your missing the real point of NCLB. While I don't think it is a good idea, there is good reason for it. Everyone wants to complain about how poorly our schools are run and how they vary so differently from State to State. This was a way for the Federal government to try and put pressure and a standard upon the schools.

I don't think it worked the way as planned, but it was a good effort. We can't find the best answer without trying out and refining ones that fail on the whole.... or you can't succeed without failing everyso often.

NCLB shows us where the failures are in our school system and proves how a simple test=funding doesn't equate properly.

Where to now though? Back to State run schools with no Federal oversight? Not sure that's a good idea either.... NCLB needs refinement, not dismissal...

Seems like they are trying to put larger city schools out of business and have all the kids go to fly by night private schools if their parent(s) can't afford to move. The difference between high income and low incomes schools have grown and grown again, and the idea seems to just kill the lower income schools, sort of capitalism applied to schools. But what can kids do, they are at the mercy of their parents?

What's this thread about again??

Heath Ledger's ACCIDENTAL Overdose (as if) wrote: I'm still not convinced that the people of the United States are smart enough (okay, enlightened enough) to vote in either a black man or a white woman for president.

It will be some white dude, from the Republican Party...hell, the Jesustards will probably figure out a way to get Mr. Huckabee elected...

Seems we like former Governers from this part of the country...

I wouldn't mind either black or a woman if they were good candidates... but the Obama and Clinton are definately not good candidates.... outta the two though I'd have to say I'd like Clinton better (shock, horror, horror! )... Obama just makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but his politics would be bad for our country on the long term...

word is Huckabee is vying for VP....

I would like Hilary. Just to think what the French-American relationship could be already makes me laugh !

Hilary is worldwide known because of the Lewinski’s affair. Her husband seems to be a naughty man. Our stupid president got married last week to a former top model who likes everything that glitters – how can a former top model marry such a small ugly man if not by interest ?

So picture yourself what could be a French-American meeting. Hilary (democrat) with Nicolas (ultra jet set and mega conservative bastard) discussing the fate of the world in front of the cameras while Bill and Carla in the backroom… These two naughty personalities in the same room, no doubt that something ‘kinky’ is to expect !!!

EdelBrock wrote: Obama just makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but his politics would be bad for our country on the long term...

If by "our country," you mean "the politics of Karl Rove," undoubtedly.

i dont know why the uk is so bothered by the elections in the us of a, we have enough problems of our own, rising fuel prices, caused by conflicts, then tax everything under the sun bar the soap that the government ever think about. i dont know how people tolerate things like this in this grotty country

DigiDiz wrote: i dont know why the uk is so bothered by the elections in the us of a, we have enough problems of our own, rising fuel prices, caused by conflicts, then tax everything under the sun bar the soap that the government ever think about. i dont know how people tolerate things like this in this grotty country

So you havent shagged her yet then?

JPS wrote: while i find mccain a very respectable and honorable man, i couldn't vote for him. He would stay in iraq for ever and he is against reproductive rights.

He'll prolly wanna pile into 'Nam too.

I'd personally wanna try something totally different, after the last fuckwit to have held this office. Obama for me; could be a disaster, but might just be inspirational.

Mind you, Doris Lessing says he will be assassinated.