If John Mccain become the President, how will he solve the financial crisis?

Very simple, create a war with Iran and maybe North Korea and if that is not enough, agitate China with Taiwan as a bait, and let the war pays for the debt.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZDZxcR0E-PE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZDZxcR0E-PE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

War has got a lot more expensive since WWII. And besides Iran is an unofficial nuclear power as well. There's too many risks in having a war with Iran.

And besides, the US cannot afford a war when they are in a full blown recession.

In the end, Sen. Obama is gonna win. Its probably looking that way anyway.

Whoever wins, will inherit problems likely to haunt the United States for periods longer than one office term.

Republicans go to war to create jobs for the people, before, during & after the war. Lives are lost in battles and that will help to cut down the number of mouths to feed. He's a war veteran, he's been there & done that. No surpises that he'd campaign another war, to take the attention away from their already red charts.

Obama win, he will up taxes and force more companies to become insolvent, then blame the people for being greedy for health insurance.

Between McCain's straight forward screw you and Obama's screw your backside twice, better take McCain.

annexa said:

Obama win, he will up taxes and force more companies to become insolvent, then blame the people for being greedy for health insurance.

Between McCain's straight forward screw you and Obama's screw your backside twice, better take McCain.

Click to expand...

Looking at the polls, it seems history is about to make a big Change.

i am more afraid of palin becoming president than anything

sherrry said:

Looking at the polls, it seems history is about to make a big Change.

Click to expand...

=================================================

Obama's policies are about the same as the current and John Mccain's policies. The change Obama is talking about is just cosmetic. Same old more spending, same military occupation in other countries. Just look at who their backers are. Much of the same interest groups.


The best candidates special interest money can buy or "Who Owns Whom?"

Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors:

Obama:
Goldman Sachs $739,521
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409

McCain:
Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Wachovia Corp $147,456
Goldman Sachs $220,045
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
Bank of America $133,975
Credit Suisse Group $175,503

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=1270#.

sherrry said:

Looking at the polls, it seems history is about to make a big Change.

Click to expand...

now isn't it interesting that the global financial collapse happens a few months before the US elections?

like OSAMA appearing on TV before the last US elections?

the people are stupid or what? LOL..

TeeKee said:

now isn't it interesting that the global financial collapse happens a few months before the US elections?

like OSAMA appearing on TV before the last US elections?

the people are stupid or what? LOL..

Click to expand...

Well, what's wrong with Obama? And its not like the economy was on the agenda. When Obama announced, he thought he could win on the basis of the Iraqi war. But since now it's the economy, Obama still looks credible.

And besides, as I said before, economy and economical management is the bread and butter of political leadership. Since Bush has proven he has none, and McCain, being a military man, has no idea about the economy and technology, they are sinking like the Titanic.

And as for Obama's name: get over it. Stop being such an ignorant fella, and start living.

In addition: Obama's contributors, while true that he has got a lot of political donations, must be viewed in context. I mean, this is an important difference in that while Obama's rich donors may have contributed in their personal capacity in their workplaces, McCain most likely got it through lobbyists who are very rich. And often lobbyists have political purposes. Individual employees and employers of Goldman Sachs who, however, donated through passing the hat, have no political purpose, other than to see the economy being repaired, even if some of them have to pay more taxes as a sacrifice.

And besides, McCain has more corporate money coming in through his bundlers and lobbyists friends. The percentage rounds up to 60% to 70%. Obama however is even on both fronts, with small donors making almost 50% of all his campaign funds.

DIVISION1 said:

Whoever wins, will inherit problems likely to haunt the United States for periods longer than one office term.

Click to expand...

It is not about who inheriting the problems, but most importantly is for the US pple to vote for the right one that is a capable leader to help minimize the problems in as short period of time as possible

sherrry said:

Republicans go to war to create jobs for the people, before, during & after the war. Lives are lost in battles and that will help to cut down the number of mouths to feed. He's a war veteran, he's been there & done that. No surpises that he'd campaign another war, to take the attention away from their already red charts.

Click to expand...

Yes is one of the way. But US need to Win in war alone because NATO or UN will not join in. But if the war drag or fight too long US will in in very disadvantage position. Next time will not be BIG BROTHER and have to share power with China and Russia.

The_Latest_H said:

When Obama announced, he thought he could win on the basis of the Iraqi war. But since now it's the economy, Obama still looks credible.

Click to expand...

Ya. Like 4 years ago, Bush looked damn credible too both on basis of war and the economy! Obama = Bush.

Devil Within said:

=================================================

Obama's policies are about the same as the current and John Mccain's policies. The change Obama is talking about is just cosmetic. Same old more spending, same military occupation in other countries.

Click to expand...

And guess who voted yes to the USD700billion blank cheque to cause world markets to water down? The Democrats. And what was in the bill? Pork barrel spending like tax reduction for ladder mechanics etc. Obama = Bush.

annexa said:

Ya. Like 4 years ago, Bush looked damn credible too both on basis of war and the economy! Obama = Bush.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Obama is for more regulation even before the crisis started. Bush only implemented regulation, because he wanted to protect his legacy.

In the case of the Iraqi war, Obama was opposed to the war, and he's still more likely the candidate to withdraw from that country, than McCain.

And as 2000 proved, elections do matter, and there was a difference between Al Gore and Bush back then. Now, eight years later, there's still significant differences between Obama and McCain. Some are not that obvious, but as I said in regards to Palin two months ago, its often these not-obvious differences that counts a lot in the years to come.

And guess who voted yes to the USD700billion blank cheque to cause world markets to water down? The Democrats. And what was in the bill? Pork barrel spending like tax reduction for ladder mechanics etc. Obama = Bush.

Click to expand...

I wonder if these guilt by association isn't an attempt by you to portray yourself as being simplistic about politics in general. I mean, do you ever realise that politics isn't black and white but actually different shades of grey?

The_Latest_H said:

Wrong. Obama is for more regulation even before the crisis started. Bush only implemented regulation, because he wanted to protect his legacy.

In the case of the Iraqi war, Obama was opposed to the war, and he's still more likely the candidate to withdraw from that country, than McCain.

And as 2000 proved, elections do matter, and there was a difference between Al Gore and Bush back then. Now, eight years later, there's still significant differences between Obama and McCain. Some are not that obvious, but as I said in regards to Palin two months ago, its often these not-obvious differences that counts a lot in the years to come.

I wonder if these guilt by association isn't an attempt by you to portray yourself as being simplistic about politics in general. I mean, do you ever realise that politics isn't black and white but actually different shades of grey?

Click to expand...

Since it is grey, we should vote McCain. He is grey (haired). Obama is black.
You are too simplistic in your symphathy for racist polictics. You are not providing any substance in countering my prove that Democrats support pork barrel spending which is killing the USA, and now the world. Obama wants to up tax, which kills enterprises, and spend on healthcare which is already heavily subsidised in USA.

You are racist and support racist politics, because Obama is called the probable FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. But McCain is never known as the NEXT WHITE PRESIDENT. And the blacks vote almost exlcusively for Obama without listening to McCain anyway. Obama stands for racist politics and further division of the world by skin colour.

He wants to pull out of Afgan and Iraq, because he got no capacity nor ability to lead the troops in these areas. Once USA troops are out of the place, Iran can screw around the region together with Syria. I wait to see the day cometh when oil contracts are no longer priced in USD alone. Then the world will go into another spin of selling USD as trash papers. Thanks to Obama's no-ballness and prematured ejaculation. You probably never realised why Iran gave up the non-USD oil trade center. There is also Venezula waiting to pounce on it.

annexa said:

Since it is grey, we should vote McCain. He is grey (haired). Obama is black.
You are too simplistic in your symphathy for racist polictics. You are not providing any substance in countering my prove that Democrats support pork barrel spending which is killing the USA, and now the world. Obama wants to up tax, which kills enterprises, and spend on healthcare which is already heavily subsidised in USA.

You are racist and support racist politics, because Obama is called the probable FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. But McCain is never known as the NEXT WHITE PRESIDENT. And the blacks vote almost exlcusively for Obama without listening to McCain anyway. Obama stands for racist politics and further division of the world by skin colour.

He wants to pull out of Afgan and Iraq, because he got no capacity nor ability to lead the troops in these areas. Once USA troops are out of the place, Iran can screw around the region together with Syria. I wait to see the day cometh when oil contracts are no longer priced in USD alone. Then the world will go into another spin of selling USD as trash papers. Thanks to Obama's no-ballness and prematured ejaculation. You probably never realised why Iran gave up the non-USD oil trade center. There is also Venezula waiting to pounce on it.

Click to expand...

Oh jesus. Go ahead, get yourself more rope to hang yourself. I can't be bothered honouring you with a proper reply. Such pathetic ignorance should be scorned and not condoned.

Devil Within said:

======
Obama:
Goldman Sachs $739,521
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409

McCain:
Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Wachovia Corp $147,456
Goldman Sachs $220,045
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
Bank of America $133,975
Credit Suisse Group $175,503

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=1270#.

Click to expand...

Okay, we see some familar companies here, where our taxpayers dollars have been invested...

So SGP will have the potential avenues to lobby for Lee interests in the US congress in future?

TeeKee said:

Okay, we see some familar companies here, where our taxpayers dollars have been invested...

So SGP will have the potential avenues to lobby for Lee interests in the US congress in future?

Click to expand...

Well, if the performance of the companies becomes utterly pathetic, and the reputations are devasted, I don't think there could be much political leverage for anyone to lobby.

The_Latest_H said:

Well, what's wrong with Obama?

Click to expand...

i neber said Obama's wrong i am just expressing my observation...hehe...i support Obama more than the old fart, who would probably drop dead after serving for a few years....do you know the pressures of being the US president?

before they become one, they have black hairs, after they serve a term or 2, became white...lol..