US Elections

[BWFC_Insane]

Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?

Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.

Why?

Increasing US Poverty levels? Recession? WAR?

Are the other party some sort of magic wand? Why would it be any different under the democrats? That other Clinton was a right dodgy fooker from what I remember.

All politicians are. Clinton was one of the better ones.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Didnt understand a word of that. Who's winning?

Still Obama, but it is getting tighter since Pennsylvania. Mummy's wish for another Republican president is incomprehensible. Being of a conservative disposition is fine, but the US (and the world) desperately need a change.

Why?

US foreign policy should be greatly improved IMHO (Clinton was not bad in that area). Domestically health care is a major issue (the wealthy and impoverished do okay, while the middle group have problems). US economic policies have cost me a small fortune of late because of the sub-prime business. I don't want to get on to religion, but I do find the white, conservative, fundamentalist Christian types rather frightening and they vote Republican.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You have to remember, BWFCi, that for quite some time Mummy's avatar was a picture of Margaret Thatcher.

Tokenism? Affirmative Action? "B Hussein"? You're a bright fella, don't show yourself up as a brain-dead right-wing bigot. Oooh it's the bogeyman!!!

And you'd do well to remember, DSB, that the avatar was a joke in the context of discussions at the time. I'm not a Thatcherite...much more of a Tory Democrat.

And as for being a brain-dead right-wing bigot... hang about. I really am as colourblind and non-racist a person as you could find. And Hussein is just his middle name.

But yes, I think his is a one-issue candidacy - if he were a white unexceptional first-term senator with a thin resume, then he wouldn't have a prayer. It all reminds me of how ridiculous it was when self-righteous liberals were falling over themselves to show how progressive they were by praising Brokeback Mountain's wonderfulness, when it was actually a pretty crap film, and would have been seen as such if it hadn't been two gay blokes. I mention this now because I have recently been reminded of the following email I sent somebody on the subject a while back..

Yes, I've seen Brokeback Mountain
> > > > > > and found it unpersuasive, shallow, and almost entirely undeserving
> > > > > > of the vast credit that's fashionably heaped upon it. As a film I
> > > > > > wouldn't recommend seeing it, but as a sociological phenom you
> > > > > > might as well check it out (if only to roll your eyes knowingly
> > > > > > when friends drone on about its wonderfulness). The story (as I'm
> > > > > > sure you've heard) is simple: two rough, taciturn cowboys (or,
> > > > > > sheepboys, more accurately) get paired up to work. They don't know
> > > > > > each other, say little to one another, and spend some time staring
> > > > > > off into the distance, kicking some dust, glancing at each other,
> > > > > > etc until one cold evening alone atop Brokeback Mountain they end
> > > > > > up f*cking. (I'm no expert on gay seduction practices, but I found
> > > > > > this to be rather unconvincing, in that they went from barely
> > > > > > communicating with one another to full-on gay ass-sex in about 4.5
> > > > > > seconds.) So they part ways but years later hook up again, stealing
> > > > > > away every once in awhile for fishing trips which allow them, as
> > > > > > one of them puts it, 'a few high altitude f*cks'. This to me is the
> > > > > > essence of the film: while the promos include lush orchestral
> > > > > > scores and the melodramatic tagline 'love is a force of nature', 'a
> > > > > > few high altitude f*cks' is a much better summation of their
> > > > > > relationship than anything involving love. And so the tale of
> > > > > > 'love' ends tragically: one of them wastes his life by slutting
> > > > > > around with Mexican rent-boys, while the other's marriage and
> > > > > > family dissolves. And while the tale is undoubtedly tragic, I'm not
> > > > > > sure it's tragic in the way the producers intended it to be: are
> > > > > > the men neglectful parents and sad lonely creatures because society
> > > > > > has forced them to live a lie, or are they losers because they are
> > > > > > prisoners of their own self-destructive sexual appetites?> > > >
> > > > > > The film, for all its 'courage' and 'avant-gardeness', is really
> > > > > > just a failed rehash of cliched genres and stereotypes. The
> > > > > > dramatic orchestral score and taglines suggest your classically
> > > > > > romantic, manly western, but with a gay makeover: Queer Eye for the
> > > > > > Straight Western Guy? (ha). But the gay characters themselves are
> > > > > > entirely hetero-like and masculine -- indeed a gay (or straight
> > > > > > woman's) fantasy: Straight Western Guy for the Queer Eye? Or
> > > > > > perhaps simply the equivalent of lesbian porn for straight men (ie.
> > > > > > the equivalent of hot, hetero-like women eating eachother out).> >
> > > > > > > > So why all the fuss? I suspect that Brokeback is the liberal's
> > > > > > equivalent of Mad Mel's Passion of the Christ: just as evangelicals
> > > > > > wanted of a good thumper of a Christian film that did not ridicule
> > > > > > their faith, gays and self-righteous liberals wanted a mainstream
> > > > > > film that focused on their lifestyle and angst. Qua Christian, you
> > > > > > have to profess your love of The Passion, as not doing so would not
> > > > > > be Christian; qua liberal/gay you have to love Brokeback, as not
> > > > > > doing so would not be progressive. Sadly, in their fervour to
> > > > > > advertise themselves as socially-liberal progressives, too many
> > > > > > have conflated a bleak movie about two horny men intent on using
> > > > > > each other for their own sexual releases with a genuine love story.
> > > > > > But it will probably win an Oscar, because Hollywood likes nothing
> > > > > > more than congratulating itself for self-righteous, unimaginative
> > > > > > tripe

And no, I'm not the least bit homophobic either!

But yes, back to Obama - his vacuousness just winds me up the wrong way. All this nonsense about 'transcending' politics and 'change you can believe in'... hey, why bother with something as prosaic as a policy platform?! It really is as if he seeks the presidency on the self-importantly messianic presumption that he has been blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed him to save America in its hour of need. And what on earth is he doing describing that racist mentalist Jeremiah Wright as a father figure and mentor?! Amazing, as are a few more on his list of close affiliations.

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

So yes, Bush has not been a successful president, but I would much sooner see the change in the form of McCain than either of these two dreadul Democrat candidates.

[jmjhb]

Obama a FAR better choice than Clinton for the Democratic nomination

[Lord Kangana]

I'm afraid I'm with Billy Connolly on politics these days....

"Don't vote for anyone, it only encourages them".

Oh, and Douglas Adams:

"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Much more erudite response there, Mummy. I'm at ease now. I recall you mounting several articulate and passionate defences of Thatcher. Same deal, perhaps.

Where I'm not at ease is that, to appease the Republican right wing (the one that thinks McCain is a pinko pussy), it's quite likely that they'll appoint as McCain's running mate someone who puts the fun into fundamentalism. And McCain is not a young man - he'll be 72 at election time. God forbid but if he pops his clogs in office, we could have him replaced by some unelected bozo who won't know what he's doing except that he's doing it wrong. Bit like over here, really, except instead of f*cking the economy he'd be f*cking the world.

[BWFC_Insane]

Much more erudite response there, Mummy. I'm at ease now. I recall you mounting several articulate and passionate defences of Thatcher. Same deal, perhaps.

Where I'm not at ease is that, to appease the Republican right wing (the one that thinks McCain is a pinko pussy), it's quite likely that they'll appoint as McCain's running mate someone who puts the fun into fundamentalism. And McCain is not a young man - he'll be 72 at election time. God forbid but if he pops his clogs in office, we could have him replaced by some unelected bozo who won't know what he's doing except that he's doing it wrong. Bit like over here, really, except instead of f*cking the economy he'd be f*cking the world.

Feck me, they've got one of those at the moment!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Fair play to him, he got more votes in 2004...

[superjohnmcginlay]

Fair play to him, he got more votes in 2004...

I think that was just to shut up that annoying fat bastard though........

[Montreal Wanderer]

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

I'm not sure that is entirely fair, PB. She was actually asked what she would do if Iran made a nuclear strike on Israel, and responded she would obliterate Iran (Obama responding to the same question said he would take a strong stand). If you seriously think that McCain would not obliterate Iran should it start a nuclear attack on Israel, then you use rose-tinted specs. I'm not a hawk but I think that situation would call for a pretty strong response.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

I'm not sure that is entirely fair, PB. She was actually asked what she would do if Iran made a nuclear strike on Israel, and responded she would obliterate Iran (Obama responding to the same question said he would take a strong stand). If you seriously think that McCain would not obliterate Iran should it start a nuclear attack on Israel, then you use rose-tinted specs. I'm not a hawk but I think that situation would call for a pretty strong response.

Ok, you got me. Still struck me as being a remarkable way of phrasing it!

[boltonboris]

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

I'm not sure that is entirely fair, PB. She was actually asked what she would do if Iran made a nuclear strike on Israel, and responded she would obliterate Iran (Obama responding to the same question said he would take a strong stand). If you seriously think that McCain would not obliterate Iran should it start a nuclear attack on Israel, then you use rose-tinted specs. I'm not a hawk but I think that situation would call for a pretty strong response.

Ok, you got me. Still struck me as being a remarkable way of phrasing it!

Indeed, how very American

[Montreal Wanderer]

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

I'm not sure that is entirely fair, PB. She was actually asked what she would do if Iran made a nuclear strike on Israel, and responded she would obliterate Iran (Obama responding to the same question said he would take a strong stand). If you seriously think that McCain would not obliterate Iran should it start a nuclear attack on Israel, then you use rose-tinted specs. I'm not a hawk but I think that situation would call for a pretty strong response.

Ok, you got me. Still struck me as being a remarkable way of phrasing it!

Indeed, how very American

Well, BB, she is very American.

[Hoboh]

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

I'm not sure that is entirely fair, PB. She was actually asked what she would do if Iran made a nuclear strike on Israel, and responded she would obliterate Iran (Obama responding to the same question said he would take a strong stand). If you seriously think that McCain would not obliterate Iran should it start a nuclear attack on Israel, then you use rose-tinted specs. I'm not a hawk but I think that situation would call for a pretty strong response.

When will one of them say "lets do it now" to stop the situation with Israel ever happening??
I would be far happier if the US stayed more out of events around the world and looked after their own genuine interests than trying to polarise the rest of the world.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

I'm not sure that is entirely fair, PB. She was actually asked what she would do if Iran made a nuclear strike on Israel, and responded she would obliterate Iran (Obama responding to the same question said he would take a strong stand). If you seriously think that McCain would not obliterate Iran should it start a nuclear attack on Israel, then you use rose-tinted specs. I'm not a hawk but I think that situation would call for a pretty strong response.

When will one of them say "lets do it now" to stop the situation with Israel ever happening??
I would be far happier if the US stayed more out of events around the world and looked after their own genuine interests than trying to polarise the rest of the world.

Any responsible nation of the world, including the UK, should do all in its power to prevent a nuclear conflict. Irresponsible nations are developing nuclear weapons and the world cannot stand by and see this happen. By irresponsible nations I mean specifically North Korea and Iran. Any middle eastern state that nuked Israel would draw a nuclear response from Israel and we would have a catastrophe on our hands. One thing that prevents this is the fear of US retaliation - or put another way the obliteration of the country that started it. It is not a good way to run a world but it does work.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And you'd rather Obama than McCain in charge in the middle of all this, Monty?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Any responsible nation of the world, including the UK, should do all in its power to prevent a nuclear conflict.

Aye, but in the hypothetical situation under discussion, Hillary/the US wouldn't be preventing a nuclear conflict. Indeed, depending on whether you define one punch as a fight, it would be causing one by retaliating to Iran's strike. Here's another question: what if Iran struck another nation, one less politically aligned with the US? Say, North Korea, with its happy little dictatorship as yet strangely unchallenged by the "freedom forces"? That's the trouble with being Team America: World Police...

[Lord Kangana]

And you'd rather Obama than McCain in charge in the middle of all this, Monty?

Its debatable whether any of them would be 'in charge' in said hypothetical situation...

[Worthy4England]

You have to remember, BWFCi, that for quite some time Mummy's avatar was a picture of Margaret Thatcher.

Tokenism? Affirmative Action? "B Hussein"? You're a bright fella, don't show yourself up as a brain-dead right-wing bigot. Oooh it's the bogeyman!!!

And you'd do well to remember, DSB, that the avatar was a joke in the context of discussions at the time. I'm not a Thatcherite...much more of a Tory Democrat.

And as for being a brain-dead right-wing bigot... hang about. I really am as colourblind and non-racist a person as you could find. And Hussein is just his middle name.

But yes, I think his is a one-issue candidacy - if he were a white unexceptional first-term senator with a thin resume, then he wouldn't have a prayer. It all reminds me of how ridiculous it was when self-righteous liberals were falling over themselves to show how progressive they were by praising Brokeback Mountain's wonderfulness, when it was actually a pretty crap film, and would have been seen as such if it hadn't been two gay blokes. I mention this now because I have recently been reminded of the following email I sent somebody on the subject a while back..

Yes, I've seen Brokeback Mountain
> > > > > > and found it unpersuasive, shallow, and almost entirely undeserving
> > > > > > of the vast credit that's fashionably heaped upon it. As a film I
> > > > > > wouldn't recommend seeing it, but as a sociological phenom you
> > > > > > might as well check it out (if only to roll your eyes knowingly
> > > > > > when friends drone on about its wonderfulness). The story (as I'm
> > > > > > sure you've heard) is simple: two rough, taciturn cowboys (or,
> > > > > > sheepboys, more accurately) get paired up to work. They don't know
> > > > > > each other, say little to one another, and spend some time staring
> > > > > > off into the distance, kicking some dust, glancing at each other,
> > > > > > etc until one cold evening alone atop Brokeback Mountain they end
> > > > > > up f*cking. (I'm no expert on gay seduction practices, but I found
> > > > > > this to be rather unconvincing, in that they went from barely
> > > > > > communicating with one another to full-on gay ass-sex in about 4.5
> > > > > > seconds.) So they part ways but years later hook up again, stealing
> > > > > > away every once in awhile for fishing trips which allow them, as
> > > > > > one of them puts it, 'a few high altitude f*cks'. This to me is the
> > > > > > essence of the film: while the promos include lush orchestral
> > > > > > scores and the melodramatic tagline 'love is a force of nature', 'a
> > > > > > few high altitude f*cks' is a much better summation of their
> > > > > > relationship than anything involving love. And so the tale of
> > > > > > 'love' ends tragically: one of them wastes his life by slutting
> > > > > > around with Mexican rent-boys, while the other's marriage and
> > > > > > family dissolves. And while the tale is undoubtedly tragic, I'm not
> > > > > > sure it's tragic in the way the producers intended it to be: are
> > > > > > the men neglectful parents and sad lonely creatures because society
> > > > > > has forced them to live a lie, or are they losers because they are
> > > > > > prisoners of their own self-destructive sexual appetites?> > > >
> > > > > > The film, for all its 'courage' and 'avant-gardeness', is really
> > > > > > just a failed rehash of cliched genres and stereotypes. The
> > > > > > dramatic orchestral score and taglines suggest your classically
> > > > > > romantic, manly western, but with a gay makeover: Queer Eye for the
> > > > > > Straight Western Guy? (ha). But the gay characters themselves are
> > > > > > entirely hetero-like and masculine -- indeed a gay (or straight
> > > > > > woman's) fantasy: Straight Western Guy for the Queer Eye? Or
> > > > > > perhaps simply the equivalent of lesbian porn for straight men (ie.
> > > > > > the equivalent of hot, hetero-like women eating eachother out).> >
> > > > > > > > So why all the fuss? I suspect that Brokeback is the liberal's
> > > > > > equivalent of Mad Mel's Passion of the Christ: just as evangelicals
> > > > > > wanted of a good thumper of a Christian film that did not ridicule
> > > > > > their faith, gays and self-righteous liberals wanted a mainstream
> > > > > > film that focused on their lifestyle and angst. Qua Christian, you
> > > > > > have to profess your love of The Passion, as not doing so would not
> > > > > > be Christian; qua liberal/gay you have to love Brokeback, as not
> > > > > > doing so would not be progressive. Sadly, in their fervour to
> > > > > > advertise themselves as socially-liberal progressives, too many
> > > > > > have conflated a bleak movie about two horny men intent on using
> > > > > > each other for their own sexual releases with a genuine love story.
> > > > > > But it will probably win an Oscar, because Hollywood likes nothing
> > > > > > more than congratulating itself for self-righteous, unimaginative
> > > > > > tripe

And no, I'm not the least bit homophobic either!

But yes, back to Obama - his vacuousness just winds me up the wrong way. All this nonsense about 'transcending' politics and 'change you can believe in'... hey, why bother with something as prosaic as a policy platform?! It really is as if he seeks the presidency on the self-importantly messianic presumption that he has been blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed him to save America in its hour of need. And what on earth is he doing describing that racist mentalist Jeremiah Wright as a father figure and mentor?! Amazing, as are a few more on his list of close affiliations.

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

So yes, Bush has not been a successful president, but I would much sooner see the change in the form of McCain than either of these two dreadul Democrat candidates.

Right wing bollocks.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

You have to remember, BWFCi, that for quite some time Mummy's avatar was a picture of Margaret Thatcher.

Tokenism? Affirmative Action? "B Hussein"? You're a bright fella, don't show yourself up as a brain-dead right-wing bigot. Oooh it's the bogeyman!!!

And you'd do well to remember, DSB, that the avatar was a joke in the context of discussions at the time. I'm not a Thatcherite...much more of a Tory Democrat.

And as for being a brain-dead right-wing bigot... hang about. I really am as colourblind and non-racist a person as you could find. And Hussein is just his middle name.

But yes, I think his is a one-issue candidacy - if he were a white unexceptional first-term senator with a thin resume, then he wouldn't have a prayer. It all reminds me of how ridiculous it was when self-righteous liberals were falling over themselves to show how progressive they were by praising Brokeback Mountain's wonderfulness, when it was actually a pretty crap film, and would have been seen as such if it hadn't been two gay blokes. I mention this now because I have recently been reminded of the following email I sent somebody on the subject a while back..

Yes, I've seen Brokeback Mountain
> > > > > > and found it unpersuasive, shallow, and almost entirely undeserving
> > > > > > of the vast credit that's fashionably heaped upon it. As a film I
> > > > > > wouldn't recommend seeing it, but as a sociological phenom you
> > > > > > might as well check it out (if only to roll your eyes knowingly
> > > > > > when friends drone on about its wonderfulness). The story (as I'm
> > > > > > sure you've heard) is simple: two rough, taciturn cowboys (or,
> > > > > > sheepboys, more accurately) get paired up to work. They don't know
> > > > > > each other, say little to one another, and spend some time staring
> > > > > > off into the distance, kicking some dust, glancing at each other,
> > > > > > etc until one cold evening alone atop Brokeback Mountain they end
> > > > > > up f*cking. (I'm no expert on gay seduction practices, but I found
> > > > > > this to be rather unconvincing, in that they went from barely
> > > > > > communicating with one another to full-on gay ass-sex in about 4.5
> > > > > > seconds.) So they part ways but years later hook up again, stealing
> > > > > > away every once in awhile for fishing trips which allow them, as
> > > > > > one of them puts it, 'a few high altitude f*cks'. This to me is the
> > > > > > essence of the film: while the promos include lush orchestral
> > > > > > scores and the melodramatic tagline 'love is a force of nature', 'a
> > > > > > few high altitude f*cks' is a much better summation of their
> > > > > > relationship than anything involving love. And so the tale of
> > > > > > 'love' ends tragically: one of them wastes his life by slutting
> > > > > > around with Mexican rent-boys, while the other's marriage and
> > > > > > family dissolves. And while the tale is undoubtedly tragic, I'm not
> > > > > > sure it's tragic in the way the producers intended it to be: are
> > > > > > the men neglectful parents and sad lonely creatures because society
> > > > > > has forced them to live a lie, or are they losers because they are
> > > > > > prisoners of their own self-destructive sexual appetites?> > > >
> > > > > > The film, for all its 'courage' and 'avant-gardeness', is really
> > > > > > just a failed rehash of cliched genres and stereotypes. The
> > > > > > dramatic orchestral score and taglines suggest your classically
> > > > > > romantic, manly western, but with a gay makeover: Queer Eye for the
> > > > > > Straight Western Guy? (ha). But the gay characters themselves are
> > > > > > entirely hetero-like and masculine -- indeed a gay (or straight
> > > > > > woman's) fantasy: Straight Western Guy for the Queer Eye? Or
> > > > > > perhaps simply the equivalent of lesbian porn for straight men (ie.
> > > > > > the equivalent of hot, hetero-like women eating eachother out).> >
> > > > > > > > So why all the fuss? I suspect that Brokeback is the liberal's
> > > > > > equivalent of Mad Mel's Passion of the Christ: just as evangelicals
> > > > > > wanted of a good thumper of a Christian film that did not ridicule
> > > > > > their faith, gays and self-righteous liberals wanted a mainstream
> > > > > > film that focused on their lifestyle and angst. Qua Christian, you
> > > > > > have to profess your love of The Passion, as not doing so would not
> > > > > > be Christian; qua liberal/gay you have to love Brokeback, as not
> > > > > > doing so would not be progressive. Sadly, in their fervour to
> > > > > > advertise themselves as socially-liberal progressives, too many
> > > > > > have conflated a bleak movie about two horny men intent on using
> > > > > > each other for their own sexual releases with a genuine love story.
> > > > > > But it will probably win an Oscar, because Hollywood likes nothing
> > > > > > more than congratulating itself for self-righteous, unimaginative
> > > > > > tripe

And no, I'm not the least bit homophobic either!

But yes, back to Obama - his vacuousness just winds me up the wrong way. All this nonsense about 'transcending' politics and 'change you can believe in'... hey, why bother with something as prosaic as a policy platform?! It really is as if he seeks the presidency on the self-importantly messianic presumption that he has been blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed him to save America in its hour of need. And what on earth is he doing describing that racist mentalist Jeremiah Wright as a father figure and mentor?! Amazing, as are a few more on his list of close affiliations.

I too find the socially conservative, evangelical Republicans scary and extrememly unattractive - the good news is that a lot of them really don't like McCain, the moderate conservative. In terms of foreign policy, I'd rather the experienced hand of McCain at the wheel than either of the two Democrats - wasn't Hillary on breakfast TV in the US the other morning speaking of her willingess to 'obliterate' Iran if she felt she had to?!

So yes, Bush has not been a successful president, but I would much sooner see the change in the form of McCain than either of these two dreadul Democrat candidates.

Right wing bollocks.

Remind me to buy you a beer when we meet fella!!