Dear Col,

You do not present a "balanced" or an educated
point of view. Re-read your own post.
"The Democrats are better at talking the talk and
pandering to the emotions..."

Not true. Give credit where credit is due.
I'll just cite
two examples...
Clinton was responsible for peace, prosperity, record
surpluses, lowest unemployment ever recorded in recent
history, and so on.

President Kennedy was more than the mere womaniser that you
infer. He wasn't given time to carry out his policies very far
but fortunately he lived long enough to set them in motion.
Under his leadership the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed.
He cut back on arms spending to explore the possibilities for
a gradual reduction of tensions, in a word, to make the
great turn towards peace.

As far as the qualifications of Sarah Palin are concerned.
She's a first term governor of a marginal state, lacking any
serious executive experience. When asked whether she'd
travelled "overseas," she replied that she had been to
Hawaii, Canada, and Mexico.

Barack Obama has impeccable credentials.
A Graduate of Columbia University, Harvard Law School, As a
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama
has made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East,
Central Asia and Africa. His assignments on the Foreign
Policy Committee and Chair of the subcommittee on
European Affairs constitute significant work and awareness in
the foreign policy area.

His other strong point is, he is a scholar of U.S.
Constitutional law. On January 20th, 2009, the person
the US elects will solemnly swear to "preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the USA." With respect to the
two major candidates for President, it could be said that
Barack Obama's resume shows him to be intellectually more
qualified to execute that oath.

I won't discuss the Yalta victims with you . I
will suggest that you read the books I've recommended
by Nikolai Tolstoy.

As for my defending Stalin? You Col, have
no idea what you're talking about. My entire family
suffered from Stalin's regime in ways that you
can't even begin to imagine.

Cheers.

According to a article in today's West, Sarah Palin hired at least
5 of her old schoolmates for top jobs.

They claim that the New York Times reported that Sarah gave the
Directorship of State Division of Agriculture to one classmate,
who cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running
the agency. Wow, what a talented lady :)

C'mon Col, this girl has no qualifications or talent to be Prez,
sorry. Fine for running the local cake stall at the girlguides,
but that is about it.

Foxy at last, you have started to lift your game and come up with at least a little substance,

that is in contradiction to the no nonsense, no negotiation, no argument, content in your original post:

“I will simply state that Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton -
are both qualified to be President and Sarah Palin is not.”

Barrack Obamas ‘impeccable credentials’ are as a reviewer / counselor / advisor, not pertinent to actually making and then carrying responsibility for decisions.

It’s a bit like comparing the waiter to a chef, the waiter might suggest an impeccable combination of wine to go with your meal but it is the chef who actually cooks it.

As for “I won't discuss the Yalta victims with you .”

Then you should not have brought them up in the first place.

“You Col, have
no idea what you're talking about. My entire family
suffered from Stalin's regime”

And nor do I care, anymore than I expect you to concern yourself with the details of my family background

but the difference between us,

I do not attempt to inject such details as a source, presumably, for some sort of knee-jerk sympathy response or to "guillotine" discussion, for whatever reason.

So I suggest, you do your best and try to avoid even mentioning it, unless it has significance to the topic (of, in this case, US presidential elections).

Yabby, yep those sort of rumours / insights / exposes get trawled up at every election and are levied at just about every candidate.

Doubtless the American people will decide for themselves, who they will elect and I doubt it will be with any reference to my, yours or (how dare they) Foxy’s opinion.

Foxy,

You say >> “Clinton was responsible for peace, prosperity …”

Maybe but Clinton will be remembered for

1) his appalling lack of judgment regarding Monica Lewinsky,
2) Standing by while the massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia took place

Kennedy was responsible for

1) The bay of pigs fiasco
2) The Cuban missile crisis
3) Escalation of the Vietnam war.

I cannot believe that you could actually suggest that Obama has more experience than Palin. I understand there is an argument to be made over who is more “intelligent” or “wise”, but as to who has the experience in executive decision making, Palin clearly has it, Obama does not.

For all your attempts to downplay Palin’s experience as Mayor and Governor of Alaska, Obama has NOTHING even remotely similar. He is a FIRST TERM senator. That’s it. Being an academic might qualify you to be an advisor, but it does not prepare you to hold political office. And the suggestion that Obama is more widely travelled is simply irrelevant.

You say >> it will mean suicide for the American Nation. …Palin's pro military stance, will increase Islamic attacks ...”

WHAT?? YOU SAID WHAT??

I wonder how it is you came to this conclusion? Have you forgotten that 9/11 occurred in September 2001? Before ANY of the coalition attacks. Islamic attacks will not ever defeat America.

Pro-military stance? WTF does that mean, Pro-Military? The president is Commander in Chief of the military. Is there an anti-military candidate for president?

McCain has this arcane idea that if you send troops into battle you should actually support them and ensure that they have every possibility of successfully carrying out the tasks you set them. He believes that the current nonsense about “exit strategies” is actually damaging to the coalition soldiers who are fighting, and it also provides hope to the enemy, prolonging the conflict.

As for Yalta, I wonder what exactly you think Churchill and Roosevelt gave up? Stalin pretty much kept all the territory he captured from the Germans. Are you suggesting that Stalin would have given some of it back?

*Doubtless the American people will decide for themselves, who they will elect and I doubt it will be with any reference to my, yours or (how dare they) Foxy’s opinion.*

Oh absolutaly, we simply express our opinion on Online Opinion.

Col, you know from my previous posts, that I am for smaller Govt,
private enterprise, freedom of the individual etc, but I think that
in the US, the republicans take things to the extremes, the
result being for instance, the disaster that is Hurricane Wall St
right now. There are huge global economic implications from all
this and what has been going on with all this financial engineering
without any regulation, is little more then corporate robbery
with impunity, dressed up politically as freedom.

Now these mega losses are being socialised, so that the average
American taxpayer will be lumbered with the bill, for generations
to come.

I certainly don't see American politics as left-right, in the
traditional sense. America is in one hell of a financial mess
right now and its going to take a great deal of wisdom to solve
it.

There are some great thinkers like Buffett and Gates, who admire
Obama, they are not exactly socialists. Buffett is actually one
of Obama's economic advisors, not a silly choice, for he has
been one of the few lone voices to at least be honest about the
scandals of Wall St and the potential effect on America.

At a time like this, America needs good judgment, especially
economically. McCain is frankly not interested in economics and
Palin has no global economic skills.

Americans might well select those two, but then IMHO they will pay
a huge price, as they have with voting for Dubya, who has taken
them to the edge of the cliff in the first place. Perhaps they
need more pain to learn the hard way, so be it.

Being a typical smart arse, if that happens, I will be pointing that
out and rubbing it in :)

Dear Col,

You consistantly see things only
from your own point of view. You try to turn
the tables but I'm afraid it's not going to work
as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to correct a few impressions
that you're trying to validate.

Firstly, Obama is more than just "an advisor,"
as you put it. He's introduced several initiatives
bearing his name: "Lugar-Obama," which expanded the
Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to
conventional weapons, and the "Coburn-Obama Transparency
Act," which authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov...
He sponsored legislation requiring nuclear plant owners to
notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.
And there's more ...

Let's not imply Obama's track record is insignificant. These
bills - especially as they relate to foreign policy and
veteran's affairs - are valuable contributions to the USA.

Hillary Clinton - came of age during a time of tumultuous
social and political change in America.
Wife, mother, lawyer, advocate, and international icon,
she has lived through America's great political wars, from
Watergate to Whitewater.

I'm sure Ms Palin has certain qualities that McCain
found attractive. But they are yet to be proven.

Finally, you accuse me of trying to get sympathy from you,
when I was merely replying to your accusation that I
was a defender of Stalin. That's low.
I am realistic enough to realize that getting any
sympathy from a person who suggested on one of my other
threads that a flag for refugees should be a "dunny
surrounded by razor wire," would be a waste of time.

As for my bringing up Yalta. Again, that was in response to
your claim that the US stood against communism during the
Second World War, when in fact the US and Stalin initially
stood together. The US did not enter the Second World War
until December 1941.

I directed you to read Nikolai Tolstoy's books to
get the accurate picture for yourself.

I'm beginning to understand why you continually transfer
you aggressions onto others, when they merely respond
to your statements.

Your beloved Thatcher summed it up:

"Ego, is God's gift to little men.