Register

Poll

So which one are you voting for, huh?!

John McCain
3 (9.4%)
Barack Obama
21 (65.6%)
Third Party/Misc
3 (9.4%)
Unsure
3 (9.4%)
Not voting
2 (6.3%)

Total Members Voted: 31

Author Topic: Grand political roundup  (Read 54743 times)

superaielman

  • "Mordero daghain pas duente cuebiyar/The fear of death holds not my heart!"
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 9632
    • View Profile
Re: Who are you voting for come November?
« Reply #250 on: September 25, 2008, 07:06:56 PM »
Uh yeah, stopped reading that one after one paragraph. Try again with an article that is at least pretending to be unbiased.

It's NR online, thought it went without saying there.  That said..


Quote
As for "The UN lacks any crediblah blah Israel..." Seriously?  That's retarded.  Not allowing Ahmadinejad to speak is far, far worse than letting his voice get out and be scrutinized.  And after scrutiny, it turns out that maybe he's not just spouting hate speech and might have a fucking point?

It isn't that he spoke, he has all the right in the world to do that. The fact that his speech was well received both domestically in Iran and abroad . And considering his general history and comments about Israel it's extremely hard to take anything he says without a massive grain of salt about them.

This is very much an election issue, considering the Iranian president's recent US tour. (The US's and Iran's) He made this trip partly to bolster his own chances at re-election.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/25/ahmadinejad_campaigns/

Comments from one of his aides.
Quote
There were times, as I read the speech in English at the U.N. for a worldwide audience, when I was hoping perhaps to hear something a little more conciliatory or even something new -- and at times it was hard to keep a straight face (or, rather, a straight voice), particularly in the section where he repeated claims from the long-discredited "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

So yeah, I'm going to say that I doubt his intentions on this one.
"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself"- Count Aral Vorkosigan, A Civil Campaign
-------------------
<Meeple> knownig Square-enix, they'll just give us a 2nd Kain
<Ciato> he would be so kawaii as a chibi...

metroid composite

  • m_ACac
  • Administrator
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4378
    • View Profile
Re: Who are you voting for come November?
« Reply #251 on: September 25, 2008, 07:25:43 PM »
This is very much an election issue, considering the Iranian president's recent US tour. (The US's and Iran's) He made this trip partly to bolster his own chances at re-election.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/25/ahmadinejad_campaigns/
Sounds relevant to the Iranian election.  I'm having trouble seeing the connection to the American election.

(To put things into perspective, I know Excal was thinking of making a separate topic for the Canadian election--"Who are you voting for in October?"  While I'd be interested in debating the Canadian election, I wouldn't want to hyjack this topic since the relevant issues and players are completely different).

NotMiki

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4476
  • Social Justice McNinja
    • View Profile
Re: Who are you voting for come November?
« Reply #252 on: September 26, 2008, 03:50:56 AM »
It isn't that he spoke, he has all the right in the world to do that.

Well, duh.  That's why it's the UN and not the League of Democracies.  Oh, wait, Iran is a democracy (to an extent).  Uh... that's why it's the UN and not the Friends of America.  Each country gets a ticket, and there's no moral dress code.

You wanna talk about rights?  What did the president of the US come to the UN to say? "It's intolerable that Russia dared violate the sovereignty of another nation!"  The rest of the world laughed at him when he said that, and they were right.  How the hell is the relationship between Georgia and Abkhazia any different from the relationship between Serbia and Kosovo?  Only that we sided with the large parent nation instead of the small breakaway.

So the president of Iran wants to attack a sovereign nation?  Who the hell are we to say he can't speak for thinking something we already did in Iraq?

-----

and may I reiterate that we should just change the name of this topic to something more generically political?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 11:44:50 AM by NotMiki »
Rocky: you do know what an A-bomb is, right?
Bullwinkle: A-bomb is what some people call our show!
Rocky: I don't think that's very funny...
Bullwinkle: Neither do they, apparently!

Dark Holy Elf

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8161
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: Who are you voting for come November?
« Reply #253 on: September 26, 2008, 03:57:41 AM »
Yeah, I'd second Miki's request. It's quite clearly evolved into a general politics topic (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

Dunefar

  • Moderator
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • Wuffy-wuff-wuff!
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #254 on: September 26, 2008, 04:12:39 AM »
Done.
* Infinite_Ko_Loop is now known as Ko-CidisnotaPrincess
<Nephrite> That is depressing.
<CmdrKing> I know.  Cid would makea  great princess.

Dunefar

  • Moderator
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • Wuffy-wuff-wuff!
    • View Profile
Re: Who are you voting for come November?
« Reply #255 on: September 26, 2008, 04:18:51 AM »
Well, duh.  That's why it's the UN and not the League of Democracies.  Oh, wait, Iran is a democracy (to an extent).  Uh... that's why it's the UN and not the Friends of America.  Each country gets a ticket, and there's no moral dress code.

Which really is telling of one of the UN's biggest flaws: It tables countries of less than...agreeable sorts. It's easy to dismiss the UN when you see it being used as a sound stage for a nation you disagree with.
* Infinite_Ko_Loop is now known as Ko-CidisnotaPrincess
<Nephrite> That is depressing.
<CmdrKing> I know.  Cid would makea  great princess.

Dark Holy Elf

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8161
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #256 on: September 26, 2008, 04:25:19 AM »
So wait, a league designed as a stage for diplomacy between the entire world should just ignore nations "you disagree with"? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

Dunefar

  • Moderator
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • Wuffy-wuff-wuff!
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #257 on: September 26, 2008, 04:27:51 AM »
So wait, a league designed as a stage for diplomacy between the entire world should just ignore nations "you disagree with"? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

It's saying that there's an inherent flaw in the concept. To excuse the Godwin of it a moment, would you be terribly enthused if Nazi Germany was part of the UN? The problem with having a stage for diplomacy for the entire world is, well, it's the entire world.

It's like how there's always a few creepy relatives at reunions. You know, the ones with the mail order bride and all the...odd stories? Yeah.
* Infinite_Ko_Loop is now known as Ko-CidisnotaPrincess
<Nephrite> That is depressing.
<CmdrKing> I know.  Cid would makea  great princess.

Dark Holy Elf

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 8161
  • Well-behaved women seldom make history
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #258 on: September 26, 2008, 05:01:24 AM »
And yet, you still invite those relatives to reunions, and if you have something you need to work out with them (like setting a will or somesuch), you grind your teeth and do it. Sometimes you have to work with people you don't like.

And yes, Nazi Germany would belong at the UN. In fact part of the reason Nazi Germany existed in the first place was that its WW1 enemies tried to deny it basic rights as a country like that. (Actually, what you're proposing sounds more like the League of Nations than the UN, and we all remember how well that worked.)

I'd still be in favour of going to war with them in 1939; this is not the point.

And as it gets harder and harder to infleunce other nations using war (plenty of recent, telling examples for this, and in the case of nuclear nations it goes from ineffective to impossible as a tactic), the need to aim for international diplomacy only gets stronger.

Erwin Schrödinger will kill you like a cat in a box.
Maybe.

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #259 on: September 26, 2008, 10:42:17 AM »
All right, I hadn't really been paying attention to this topic for the last month; hadn't realized it had become a more general politics topic.  Sorry about that.

---

OK.  Really.  You're honestly saying that the UN should be for the countries we agree with or are allied with and nobody else?  That's missing the point of diplomacy.  Hell, if you're going to get Godwin on us, two can play at that game.  What's more akin to the policies of Nazi Germany than ONLY allowing opinions aligned with your views to be spoken than anything else?  Guess what, it's happened a lot during the 20th century (re: USSR, US during the McCarthy days), and it doesn't work.  Surrounding yourself and only negotiating with only with parties or countries you agree with only leads to heightened tensions between said parties, which, guess what!  Leads to more conflict instead of more... concillitory conclusions.  Don't believe me, look what the Iron Curtain did for relations between the US and its allies and the USSR.

---

In other news, I'm honestly finding it harder and harder to see myself voting for McCain.  Why?  His record on similar economic crisises back in the late 80s.  The situation now resembles too closely what happened with Lincoln Savings and Loans, and McCain already botched that one up while in the senate.  Still, this could mean that he has a point from which he can learn from that mistake, and it can be argued that his experience with it could help him better deal with it than Obama could, but it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, especially combined with the fact that for some reason he refuses to hold a presidential debate. 

EDIT:  Re-reading this, I got a bit too brash, though I didn't mean to.  Just cleaned up the language a bit.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 10:45:59 AM by Zenthor »

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #260 on: September 26, 2008, 02:38:11 PM »
I am glad someone else brought up and said the obvious on the American stance on Georgia.  I have been holding that very comment back for weeks now.

The real question should be, do the Georgian people actually want there to be a war over that shit?  Fuck their current ludicrously corrupt "President" (guy is less democratic than Putin for fucks sake, Russia could almost play the democracy card and get away with it Saakashvili is that messed), but the people who oppose him and hold him up as a power mongering hypocrite that he really is(Like the people that were allied with him during the revolution but saw through the bullshit later).

My money is on no, they don't want that.  They would rather not be another Chechnia fighting a guerilla war against Russia.
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

Grefter

  • Villain.
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 10386
  • True and Honest. Smarter. More aggressive.
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #261 on: September 26, 2008, 03:00:14 PM »
I am well aware of anti-UN sentiment surrounding groups who have a strong isolationist streak in them.  The same groups that were shitting on the UN for their Nuclear disarmament team not finding any nuclear weapons in Iraq and mocking them for not pressuring harder when Hussein was getting shitty with over half a decade of inspection telling people that maybe they should think about fucking off a little and no you can't look at every single piece of land for the eighth time.

Edit - Specifically thinking of the months before Hans Blix' resignation.
NO MORE POKEMON - Meeplelard.
The king perfect of the DL is and always will be Excal. - Superaielman
Don't worry, just jam it in anyway. - SirAlex
Gravellers are like, G-Unit - Trancey.

metroid composite

  • m_ACac
  • Administrator
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4378
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #262 on: September 26, 2008, 06:15:25 PM »
The situation in Georgia is actually kinda weird, since (at least according to my historian mother), what happened was:

1. Georgia went through a revolution with America's encouragement.
2. Georgia moved to "liberate" South Ossetia (Russian territory) with America's encouragement.
3. Russia struck back a bit too hard.

On the one hand, it's unfortunate what happened to Georgia.  On the other hand, they're not entirely blameless, just the little-guy.

NotMiki

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4476
  • Social Justice McNinja
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #263 on: September 27, 2008, 04:14:53 AM »
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are ethnic minority areas, distinct from the Georgian majority.  They've been semi-autonomous with Russia's support like the Kurdish region of Iraq was in Husein's later years with the US.  It's worth noting that there had been a previous attempt by Georgia to ethnically cleanse these areas back in the early nineties leading to this Russian protectorate (I think.  Working from memory here).  There's a lot of ethnic bad blood, and there had been atrocities committed by both sides previous to Georgia's unprovoked attack on South Osettia.

On a separate note: the presidential debate, my take:

McCain: "I'm not senile!"

Obama: "I'm not a neophite!"

Good, substantive debate, more or less a draw, with both men demonstrating they have the requisite knowledge to do the job.  The PBS pundits thought that it was a net gain for Obama because he's already ahead and McCain needed a game-changer, but I see this as a net gain for McCain, because his campaign has been in freefall for the last few days due to his conflicting statements and rather erratic behavior, and tonight he stopped the bleeding.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 04:16:59 AM by NotMiki »
Rocky: you do know what an A-bomb is, right?
Bullwinkle: A-bomb is what some people call our show!
Rocky: I don't think that's very funny...
Bullwinkle: Neither do they, apparently!

InfinityDragon

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #264 on: September 27, 2008, 06:02:18 AM »
I missed the first half of the debate since some relative dropped by to visit. Apparently--from what I gather--Obama did well and McCain didn't fall apart. Pretty much what I would have predicted.

I did catch the foreign policy part...and I can't say Obama did very well comparatively to McCain. He conceded McCain as being correct on many issues while McCain barely ceded many points to Obama and attacked Obama's stances multiple times. There was also the portion where Obama was trapped in a semantics argument about preconditioned meetings with "rogue nations" that he simply did not escape from. Obama was also too focused on the history of the Iraq war and failed to offer a real plan for the future. The past is over and done with, the future is what matters. McCain's stance of "finish the job correctly, then we leave" was much more concrete, much more realistic, and frankly, far better than a phased withdrawal. I did like Obama's idea of more troops in Afghanistan, but I'm not entirely sure he has a real solid plan for that--I'm not sure Obama knows what a brigade actually is and it sounded like he was just throwing out military terms as a way of puffing his credibility; 2-3 Brigades would only mean 4500-10000 more troops...which wouldn't be near enough if he's also planning operations into Pakistan (side note: the Air Force doesn't use Brigades...the rough equivalent would be a Wing; I don't know if that omission was intentional or just a generalized statement of his plan).

Then there was Obama's outright terrible geographic error in regards that went along the lines of [we also need to foster our presence and democracy in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia...and the Czech Republic...these areas that are near the same area as Georgia]. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are nowhere *near* Georgia, and the Czech Republic isn't all that much closer. I understand he was referring to former USSR satellite states and its easy to make such a mistake in the heat of the moment during a debate, but still, that's either really poor geographic knowledge or terrible wording.

Eh, debate didn't really change my opinions really. Obama really did not display a keen knowledge on military matters, which is still a very important issue despite the problems of the economy growing. On a more personal level, since I will in all likelihood have started my first Air Force JAG assignment by the time the new president takes office, I would not want a potentially incompetent Commander in Chief like Obama being my boss (Although there could be worse!).

EDIT: I don't think Obama did all that bad overall, he was just up against some stiff opposition. Had his opponent been someone with far less foreign policy/military experience--such as GW Bush, Kerry, or Clinton--he'd have looked much better in comparison.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 09:39:14 AM by InfinityDragon »

AAA

  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1348
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #265 on: September 27, 2008, 02:36:40 PM »
Analysts are saying it's a tie. CNN's poll gives the debate to Obama, but the poll is still active so I imagine it'll smooth out at least a little.

McCain really, really needs to draw some blood in these debates, so the tie gives Obama a slight edge. However, the town hall debate is still coming up and that's where McCain is strongest. Obama always seems uncomfortable in them, though, so I imagine he's got some heavy coaching to get through.

I'm mostly ignoring the VP debate since it's so neutered.
Don't think of it as a novel. Think of it as a chance to retroactively win every argument you have ever walked away from.

Veryslightlymad

  • CONCEPTUALIZATION [Challenging: Success]
  • DL
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1141
  • Shitposts are a type of art for webforums
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #266 on: September 28, 2008, 07:00:03 AM »
Analysts WERE saying it was a McCain victory yesterday, because, to Analysts, he did what he was supposed to.

Unfortunately, they're paid specifically to look at things different from the average person, and the results seem to indicate that more independents went for Obama. A slight Obama victory equals a pretty darned bad loss for John McCain, because 1)He needed a big boost and 2)The first debate is usually the most watched.

As for WHY Obama won? Well, McCain's attacks didn't seem to really stick. He kept trying to drill the "What Senator Obama doesn't understand" rhetoric, but Obama responded every time with a lengthy explanation. But I don't think that's it. I think, honestly, that appearances made a huge difference in this debate. From a strict Body Language perspective, Barack Obama came across as much stronger than McCain. Staggeringly so. John McCain didn't look at Barack ONCE in the debate. Not once. It took some prodding from the Moderator, but eventually, Obama started looking over at McCain. Obama also does this really nifty thing with his hands, from a body language perspective. I dunno if he's doing this on purpose or not. When he's talking directly to McCain in the debate, he turns his wrist downward, which is a forceful, dominant gesture. But when he's appealing to the audience/camera, his wrists turn upward, which is much more open and friendly. It's remarkably subtle, and I wonder how much of that is his general attitude toward McCain, or how much of it is his attitude of "I have to show strength over my opponent." My best guess is that it's not a conscious thing, but it's kind of neat to watch.

McCain's body language was weak and stilted. Now, I'm not one to hold this against the man, because it's pretty common knowledge that the tortures he underwent in Vietnam were devastating enough that he cannot fully use his arms. It strikes me that his body language would be impacted. I have no idea if it is physically demanding of him to turn and face Obama. Regardless, subconsciously, the average person is not going to see McCain as winning the confrontation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for my view on the debate? Well, personally, neither candidate touched on any issues that are sensitive to me, specifically, I think. Which are, in no good order:
Inflation
Education, both secondary and post-secondary
Online Poker

The last is such a tiny issue that, if a candidate mentioned it in any more than the most passing of contexts, I would have felt really weird about why they were running. There are bigger fish to fry. Education should make sense, since I'm a perennial college student, and my sister is employed as an inner-city highschool teacher. As she faces potential strike over the threatened reduction of her health care benefits, I guess I sort of care about both health care and education. But really, education matters quite a lot to me, particularly rising costs.
Inflation is a huge deal, that, unless I missed it, neither candidate had the cajones to mention even ONCE. Yes, I know there's a lending crisis. So low interest rates are a must, because people are getting killed trying to pay off debt, but slashing interest rates directly leads to inflation which should be basic Econ101, here. Inflation is killing everyone, not just folks who have bad debts. The price of groceries has spiked pretty notably, and I'd like to know what we're expected to do about it.

>Shrug<

It was worth watching. I'll watch the next two and the VP debate.

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #267 on: September 30, 2008, 11:28:04 AM »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/iran.israel.ahmadinejad

Discuss.  I honestly don't know what to think on this.

superaielman

  • "Mordero daghain pas duente cuebiyar/The fear of death holds not my heart!"
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 9632
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #268 on: September 30, 2008, 05:06:12 PM »
That's a very nice step in the right direction. I only hope he means it.
"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself"- Count Aral Vorkosigan, A Civil Campaign
-------------------
<Meeple> knownig Square-enix, they'll just give us a 2nd Kain
<Ciato> he would be so kawaii as a chibi...

metroid composite

  • m_ACac
  • Administrator
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4378
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #269 on: September 30, 2008, 05:38:08 PM »
There was also the portion where Obama was trapped in a semantics argument about preconditioned meetings with "rogue nations" that he simply did not escape from.
I remember that part of the debate, and thinking Obama came out of that ahead.  McCain opened with criticizing Obama's suggesting of meeting Iran "Without Precondition", Obama responded clarifying that without precondition just means that you don't require a country to submit to your demands before even talking to them, McCain named a bunch of names, Obama replied with "funny you should mention Karl Rove--he also said we should meet with Iran without precondition".

Dunno, it seems like Obama pretty clearly had the right idea (of course you should be prepared to talk with countries), and McCain was just trying and failing to use a semantics attack.

InfinityDragon

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #270 on: September 30, 2008, 06:37:42 PM »
Quote
Dunno, it seems like Obama pretty clearly had the right idea (of course you should be prepared to talk with countries), and McCain was just trying and failing to use a semantics attack.

Actually it was Obama that started the "this is preparations not preconditions" semantics nonsense as a defense to McCain's attack that Obama wants to to meet with Iranian and North Korean leaders without preconditions.

Quote
Discuss.  I honestly don't know what to think on this.

Nice step in the right direction, but Ahmadninejad is just a figurehead without much power in Iran. Now if Khameni or the Majlis start issuing statements like that, it would be a different story.

Cotigo

  • Jerkface
  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4176
  • Yoo-hoo, Mr. Tentacle Guy...
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #271 on: September 30, 2008, 08:43:39 PM »
Mm, the figurehead thing probably cures my confusion.  See, him making a couple points while still spouting similar ideology as he had been makes sense, but since these statements basically are a reversal of the bullshit he had been spouting before it made it hard to take seriously.  It was more of a I don't know if he's telling the truth or not rather than a I don't know what to make of what these statements mean sort of thing.

NotMiki

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4476
  • Social Justice McNinja
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #272 on: October 01, 2008, 02:08:28 AM »
For those who are interested, the Annenberg Political Fact Check's analysis of the first presidential debate.  Not too bad by either candidate, all things considered.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
Rocky: you do know what an A-bomb is, right?
Bullwinkle: A-bomb is what some people call our show!
Rocky: I don't think that's very funny...
Bullwinkle: Neither do they, apparently!

NotMiki

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4476
  • Social Justice McNinja
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #273 on: October 04, 2008, 04:35:48 PM »
For George Bush, this week had its ups and downs.

Up: his disapproval rating, which at 70% is an all-time high for any president since they started surveying people back in 1937.

Down: his approval rating, 22%, tying Harry Truman for an all-time low.

Here, for comparison, are the lowest approval ratings of other presidents.

LOWEST RATINGS OF PAST PRESIDENTS
                                                             Approve           Disapprove
George W. Bush (9/2008)                             22%         70
Harry Truman (2/1952)                                 22%         65 (Gallup)
Richard Nixon (8/1974)                                 24%         66 (Gallup)
Jimmy Carter (7/1979)                                  26%         56
George H. Bush (7/1992)                              31%         59
Lyndon Johnson (8/1968)                             35%         52 (Gallup)
Bill Clinton (9/1994)                                       36%        51
Gerald Ford (1/1975)                                     37%        39 (Gallup)
Ronald Reagan (1/1983)                               41%         47
Dwight Eisenhower (3/1958)                        48%         36 (Gallup)
Franklin Roosevelt (8/1938)                          50%         44 (Gallup)
John F. Kennedy (11/1963)                           58%         30 (Gallup)

and here's the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SEP08D_BAILOUT.pdf
Rocky: you do know what an A-bomb is, right?
Bullwinkle: A-bomb is what some people call our show!
Rocky: I don't think that's very funny...
Bullwinkle: Neither do they, apparently!

InfinityDragon

  • Denizen
  • *
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Grand political roundup
« Reply #274 on: October 04, 2008, 07:52:36 PM »
That poll shows how disturbingly sad and utterly ignorant the average person is when it comes to economics. Is liquidity really that tough of an issue to understand? I suppose that's also a reflection on national leaders' total failure to explain what the economic issue even is.