Barack Obama's Pastor

[HAL 9000 96]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Must be why so many people were peed off with the UK budget last week. "Rip-off Britain" is a well-established label over there. More expensive to live than anywhere else in Europe - save for Switzerland and Scandinavian countries, which actually have a much higher standard of living.

Well the English tax system is quite high. How else do you pay for all of those services? Probably why every second person I met in Melbourne now is from the UK.

I don't think I'm alone in wondering why taxes over there go up every year, but the standard of "service" stays the same. Britain's economy isn't exactly booming either - we're tied to the fortunes of the US economy, perhaps more so than the rest of Europe.

Besides - Britain isn't the most expensive country in Europe, as I said. Clearly Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway are doing something that the UK simply isn't, and those countries have comparable public services and a generally higher standard of living.

Contrast that with the UK where you have triple taxation on motorists - not only annual road tax, but congestion charging and ever-increasing fuel duties. The cost of a gallon of petrol over there would even shock people from California - who've been dealing with $3.50/g pump prices for a while now.

[Heracles 417]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

While Obama is a younger person he is not exactly a clean change. He is after all a senator. What is very dangerous is people falling for a slogan and voting for it without asking or questioning what it means or how they plan on achieving it. I have personally never experienced an election like the US style throw out a slogan and have people cheer for it. Now I am not saying Obama is a bad guy or that he would not be a good president but we have to do our homework with these guys..

[HAL 9000 96]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

While Obama is a younger person he is not exactly a clean change. He is after all a senator. What is very dangerous is people falling for a slogan and voting for it without asking or questioning what it means or how they plan on achieving it. I have personally never experienced an election like the US style throw out a slogan and have people cheer for it. Now I am not saying Obama is a bad guy or that he would not be a good president but we have to do our homework with these guys..

This is good logic.

This should make your homework assignment easier to do on a comparison basis:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

[Peikko 1,575]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

I can't vote. However I have made it quite clear that if I could vote and his name were on the ballot I would do so. However, again, I would do so with the clear understanding that he is not nearly as progressive as he is claiming with his rhetoric. What he has actually defined as being the things he would like to do are really not materially different from the so called 'old school' politician.

[no name 1]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

Are you serious???? Vote & pray it's all OK?

[Heracles 417]

I don't think I'm alone in wondering why taxes over there go up every year, but the standard of "service" stays the same. Britain's economy isn't exactly booming either - we're tied to the fortunes of the US economy, perhaps more so than the rest of Europe.

Besides - Britain isn't the most expensive country in Europe, as I said. Clearly Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway are doing something that the UK simply isn't, and those countries have comparable public services and a generally higher standard of living.

Contrast that with the UK where you have triple taxation on motorists - not only annual road tax, but congestion charging and ever-increasing fuel duties. The cost of a gallon of petrol over there would even shock people from California - who've been dealing with $3.50/g pump prices for a while now.

The VAT is a joke there. When considering the small size of the country as well as its relatively large population, the VAT should not be any more than 5%. I guess this is one of the main reasons people save their money there and then move abroad.

[HAL 9000 96]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

I can't vote. However I have made it quite clear that if I could vote and his name were on the ballot I would do so. However, again, I would do so with the clear understanding that he is not nearly as progressive as he is claiming with his rhetoric. What he has actually defined as being the things he would like to do are really not materially different from the so called 'old school' politician.

Ah, I see...

Lucky us many people are registering to vote to at least see if a change will come into effect. At the minimum something positive should happen in terms of a Dem coming in to fix things. Or try. Voters should have hindsight available to them when it comes time to reelect the man.

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

Are you serious???? Vote & pray it's all OK?

Maybe that's what you wanted to read.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

While Obama is a younger person he is not exactly a clean change. He is after all a senator. What is very dangerous is people falling for a slogan and voting for it without asking or questioning what it means or how they plan on achieving it. I have personally never experienced an election like the US style throw out a slogan and have people cheer for it. Now I am not saying Obama is a bad guy or that he would not be a good president but we have to do our homework with these guys..

Who says they aren't? Its been pointed out enough times that its easy to find out where a candidate stands on an issue - simply by looking their website manifesto and by listening to the debates.

What bothers me for instance, are the claims that if BO or HC are nominated, supporters of the other will turn around and throw in their lot for McCain (its also been suggested previously that McCain being the nominee would garner Rep votes for Clinton) even though those candidates might not represent the views or indeed, the self-interest of the swing voters.. Essentially what's being suggested is that voting for a personality is more important than voting according to that candidates stance on the issues.

I somehow doubt that this will happen - on a large scale anyway, but it does give pause for thought.

[HAL 9000 96]

Exactly... hence my near ubiquitous bump FOR the issues:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

Voting for the other party IS a definite sign of hatred. And some of whiners have already come clean about those intentions here. Well... there really aren't many of those here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think I'm alone in wondering why taxes over there go up every year, but the standard of "service" stays the same. Britain's economy isn't exactly booming either - we're tied to the fortunes of the US economy, perhaps more so than the rest of Europe.

Besides - Britain isn't the most expensive country in Europe, as I said. Clearly Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway are doing something that the UK simply isn't, and those countries have comparable public services and a generally higher standard of living.

Contrast that with the UK where you have triple taxation on motorists - not only annual road tax, but congestion charging and ever-increasing fuel duties. The cost of a gallon of petrol over there would even shock people from California - who've been dealing with $3.50/g pump prices for a while now.

The VAT is a joke there. When considering the small size of the country as well as its relatively large population, the VAT should not be any more than 5%. I guess this is one of the main reasons people save their money there and then move abroad.

Saving money there is difficult considering how much things cost. Its even been suggested that you can buy and import a new car from continental Europe for much less than you could get it from a UK dealer.

[no name 1]

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

I can't vote. However I have made it quite clear that if I could vote and his name were on the ballot I would do so. However, again, I would do so with the clear understanding that he is not nearly as progressive as he is claiming with his rhetoric. What he has actually defined as being the things he would like to do are really not materially different from the so called 'old school' politician.

Ah, I see...

Lucky us many people are registering to vote to at least see if a change will come into effect. At the minimum something positive should happen in terms of a Dem coming in to fix things. Or try. Voters should have hindsight available to them when it comes time to reelect the man.

Barack's so called 'tough' approach to lobbyists is laughable. His bill is fine as far as it goes (and maybe some people don't even want to go that far, but I would doubt it) but it doesn't go very far and it really will not produce the political change that he is promoting.

Vote for him then and we'll find out. There's a difference, clearly, in talking about lobbyists and being part of the same-old lobbyist pool. What I think is not that different than you in terms of how much change he can effect in Washington, but you can't want change and then not vote for it.

Are you serious???? Vote & pray it's all OK?

Maybe that's what you wanted to read.

Communication is not your forte today I see. Purple questiones his approach. You then told Purple to vote for him & see what happens. That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard anyone say about why to vote Obama.

[Heracles 417]

This is good logic.

This should make your homework assignment easier to do on a comparison basis:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

Based on that I would vote for McCain.

[no name 1]

What bothers me for instance, are the claims that if BO or HC are nominated, supporters of the other will turn around and throw in their lot for McCain (its also been suggested previously that McCain being the nominee would garner Rep votes for Clinton) even though those candidates might not represent the views or indeed, the self-interest of the swing voters.

it *WILL* happen, I can guarantee it.

[Peikko 1,575]

I can't register to vote, if I could, I would. Enfranchisement is something I view as incredibly important.

At least see if a change will come into effect...

???? As I see it one can like the guy, think he's the best guy for the job that's totally fine but it's a little niave to view him as the symbol of political change. He is not an idealist, he's not a political activist but he plays to that tune. I don't like that much but that's his perogative and guess what? It's working for him.