Obama won re election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

May be consult again with the historical record :)
Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has a quote of Madison explaining the exact problem.
I.e. slaves were not allowed to vote in the southern states, so popular vote wouldn't give those states enough power. Going through electors solves the problem because the electors won't be slaves, but the weight they carry will be still boosted by the slaves (taken with a 3/5 ratio of course).

---

This was done for the purposes of representation and taxation in the lower house of Congress, not presidential elections. The smaller States believed that unless they had equal representation the large States would dominate Congress and legislate for their own common benefit and interest. The FF's figured nobody besides George Washington could win a clear majority in the first presidential election, in which case the election would be decided in the House of Representatives, where each State got one vote. They further predicted that each subsequent presidential election would ultimately be decided similarly.
The FF's did not create the E.C. to solve the problem of how to count slaves towards presidential elections. The FF's failed to predict the rise of political parties.

And then there's this nutjob...
Ted Nugent On Obama Election: 'Pimps Whores & Welfare Brats' Voted For 'Economic & Spiritual Suicide'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

One of the boards I read is a bash board, where anything goes. Except bringing other peoples families into it, that'll you your posts deleted and username banned. I'm all for bashing anyone, and I know you were engaging in some piss taking by mentioning it, but I think the bash forum draws the line at the right place.

---

I actually draw my own line a bit earlier than politics, religion, and personal insults. I mentioned family attacks in total jest.

A guy made a comment about my wife once on another forum...that ended the conversation then and there. To me that is a deal breaker and shows EVERYTHING about the other persons character and values.

The rules here are the rules and I am not going to tell anyone what they should and should not discuss. Have fun, friends;) I am sure you will not miss my thoughts on politics, nor should you really care.

[QUOTE=mapleleafalumnus;1053723]And then there's this nutjob...

Ok why is he a Nutjob ???? I find that telling that you linked Nugent, why did you not link the rants from the MSNBC staff ???? or Madona "We have a Black Muslim president who like all Muslims, loves gays" "and ya better *** vote for him"


:hmmm:


See I can flip the coin all day long it is rather easy to pick out the 20% of the population that is either Left Wing Loonies or Right Wing Whackjobs... The real concern is the 80% in the middle just trying to live life, we keep debating the 20% of the special needs people of our populations instead of taking care of the 80%..

No comes the Kumbya group of people that will says you judge a people my how they treat the lowest common denominator of the population :(

See you can't ever please everyone it is a losing battle

PS: to my EU friends if you really wanted a US president that would keep his big nose out of the world's business you should have been all over Ron Paul...

Glen, I chose that particular article for 2 reasons: Nugent and I are both Michigan residents, and it's on the front page of AOL News. If Madonna (also born in Michigan) had been featured in this article, I'd have posted it as well. In Michigan, Nugent is seen as a faded musician whose glory days are long gone, but still craves the attention he no longer merits from new musical productions.
As Michigan's E.C. votes went to Obama, I found his "tweet" (whatever that is, I'm not a techno-weenie geek) amusing. Typical reactionary rants when one does not get one's way. I'm waiting for him to threaten to hold his breath until his face turns blue unless Obama steps down.
And I didn't link MSNBC stuff for the simple fact that I don't watch any cable news channels, be it Fox, MSNBC, whatever you name. I really don't watch much TV except for sports and movies.

AOL = Huffpost news feed
ie: some of the 10% of the Left Wing Loonies it is all about media and what is being put in yer face :)
Aol switched to the Huffington Post sometime back, they used to be AP IIRC before that...

That would be akin to a Right Wing Whackjob quoting a Heritage Foundation news feed or perhaps The Blaze.

There are NO news feeds any longer that just report the news everything has a lean, either right or left there is one there... Some are blatant about it, others still claim to be center..


ABC CBS NBC CNN FOX all claim center, none are

Glen, I agree that the "left wing loonies" (love the colloquialism!) are just as bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Ahhhhh so you are trying to better your life, through changing mine,, interesting concept you all have there...

I would like to see your prime minister along with several others address the Radical Islamic Invasion of the EU as that could have future repercusions on me.. But

---

Nope. I am not trying to better mine through changing yours.
I didn't vote obviously, and I am not trying to affect change in any other way either.

What I do is stay up to date on things that affect my life.
As long as the US throws its weight around on the global stage, I am going to be interested in the person that is in large part spearheading the foreign policy of the US. I don't really care whether you have a working healthcare system or not. I may enter the discussion, but I am not trying to change anything, nor do I really care.

Otoh it would be strange for me NOT to care who is the US president. After all, who he is and what he does influences many things in my life, from the price of gas (wars tend to drive up oil prices) to the mortgage rate of my house. In contrast to that, what the PM of Belgium does or not does is hardly of any interest to you, because you won't notice one way of the other.

I will mention that I do have dyslexia...but am I the only one that glances at this thread title and double takes thinking he saw, "Obama won erection"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

PS: to my EU friends if you really wanted a US president that would keep his big nose out of the world's business you should have been all over Ron Paul...

---

Glen, I will take those words to heart next time I am asked to vote in your elections :p

In all seriousness, I do have an honest question: why do those 3d party candidates run?
I mean, campaigning costs buckets of money. Which is all well for the big 2 because they both have oodles of money, and about 50% change to win, give or take a couple % based on the political arena at that particular time.

But what do people like Ron Paul get out of it?
They don't even have a snowball's chance in hell to win. But suppose through an act of god he did, he'd still be hamstrung because he has zero support in the house or the senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Otoh it would be strange for me NOT to care who is the US president. After all, who he is and what he does influences many things in my life, from the price of gas (wars tend to drive up oil prices) to the mortgage rate of my house. In contrast to that, what the PM of Belgium does or not does is hardly of any interest to you, because you won't notice one way of the other.

---

I would think that what China does influences you much much more, yet I have not seen a discussion about their Politics on this board yet, oh wait, they don't have open elections, nor do they allow Dissension, Women's rights, Health care, etc, etc, etc, :hmmm:

I wonder why what the US does is of a concern to the world, yet what China does is not ????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Glen, I will take those words to heart next time I am asked to vote in your elections :p

In all seriousness, I do have an honest question: why do those 3d party candidates run?
I mean, campaigning costs buckets of money. Which is all well for the big 2 because they both have oodles of money, and about 50% change to win, give or take a couple % based on the political arena at that particular time.

But what do people like Ron Paul get out of it?
They don't even have a snowball's chance in hell to win. But suppose through an act of god he did, he'd still be hamstrung because he has zero support in the house or the senate.

---

Actually Ron Paul ran as a Republican, it was so apparent to us here that he had no support when he was ignored completly by the media, they announced Romney's name and whoever was behind Paul, Ron Paul was in 1st 2nd or 3rd place during the entire cycle yet you never would have known he exsisted (He had huge support in what we call the "Fly over states" like mine that have no real political clout)

But to answer the question it is the 5% rule,,, If a 3rd party gets 5% of the National vote things change drastically and we might have a real chance at true change in the US ( I would have to pull up the actual election rules to say all the changes that happen at 5% I have never delved that deep in it) here is a bit about the monies (PECF)

Ross Perot was the last time there was even a shot at a 3rd party candidate (in my voting life time)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I would think that what China does influences you much much more, yet I have not seen a discussion about their Politics on this board yet, oh wait, they don't have open elections, nor do they allow Dissension, Women's rights, Health care, etc, etc, etc, :hmmm:

I wonder why what the US does is of a concern to the world, yet what China does is not ????

---

Oh, we do discuss China quite a bit over here.
After the Nobel peace prize was given to one of their dissidents, they seem to have a horn in their sides towards this little corner of the world.
Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria and South Africa are other places that has seen quite a bit of news coverage lately...

On a US centric board like SRP, it would seem natural to me that the US elections are a bit more interesting.
As you stated yourself, you really don't care all that much about other nations, unless you actually live there.
So, not much point in discussions on other countries when the participants really only care about the US, no?

This election was very disapointing to me because I knew at 7:15 PST that our votes were still sitting in a little metal locked box in the Small Fire Station that we go to vote in here in the Boonies and that Obama had already won the election..

Basically the wife and I never mattered... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Birnando

On a US centric board like SRP, it would seem natural to me that the US elections are a bit more interesting.
As you stated yourself, you really don't care all that much about other nations, unless you actually live there.
So, not much point in discussions on other countries when the participants really only care about the US, no?

---

Guess you guys should start more threads :)


BTW Birnando I saw the the Progress Party that is popular as being anti-immigration lost about 6 percentage points in the last cycle... How is that going to effect the laws in the next 3 years ????

Also doesn't that pretty much make it a 2 party system for Norway between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

This election was very disapointing to me because I knew at 7:15 PST that our votes were still sitting in a little metal locked box in the Small Fire Station that we go to vote in here in the Boonies and that Obama had already won the election..

Basically the wife and I never mattered... :(

---

Probably better that way, i dont think you would want the decisive vote in this election and to carry that weight on your shoulders for 4 long years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Ross Perot was the last time there was even a shot at a 3rd party candidate (in my voting life time)

---

Unfortunately, third parties will never have a chance in America unless something changes drastically. I can only think of three third party candidates that ever even had the slightest impact on an election. Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryant.

Unit, your mom is probably an Obama voter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theseus

Unfortunately, third parties will never have a chance in America unless something changes drastically. I can only think of three third party candidates that ever even had the slightest impact on an election. Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryant.

---

Dude yer Old :rofl2: I only was around for Perot

Until the republican party stops making abortion and gay marriage major issues in their platform, they don't have a chance to win a presidential election, IMO.
Stick to the economy, small government, and individual rights (basically, be more libertarian) and they win in a landslide.

I was reading recently that many young people in foreign countries including Canada are getting involved in politics, perhaps that would be a new approach here and get them old farts out of office and get somebody with new idea other then to smile and shake your hand and then completely ignore everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

Until the republican party stops making abortion and gay marriage major issues in their platform, they don't have a chance to win a presidential election, IMO.
Stick to the economy, small government, and individual rights (basically, be more libertarian) and they win in a landslide.

---

Bingo !!! The social issues have become the talking points

Attachment 111669



The Idiocracy Predicted BTW if Romney won I am sure we would have seen it the other way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

Unit, your mom is probably an Obama voter.

---

If you only knew. She is VERY strong minded about politics.

I'll give you a pass on this one, but be careful, my friend. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

One of the boards I read is a bash board, where anything goes. Except bringing other peoples families into it, that'll you your posts deleted and username banned. I'm all for bashing anyone, and I know you were engaging in some piss taking by mentioning it, but I think the bash forum draws the line at the right place.

---

I disagree. And as luck would have it, I'm the guy drawing the lines :)

We operate this board on the premise that everyone here can behave like a grown up. We like to have a place where we can talk to each other without people trolling and screaming along the way. Take Glen and me. I am from Belgium, and he is from Idaho. There is probably very, very little common ground between us in the realm of politics. That doesn't prevent us from discussing things without being abusive or hateful or deceitful.

This way, everyone wins.
Everybody except the trolls of course, but there are plenty of other habitats for them on the internet :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

This was done for the purposes of representation and taxation in the lower house of Congress, not presidential elections.

---

Not, according to the quote I linked, here's a link with the context, it is about the Presidency. Certainly the same formula applied to the house of representatives. Small states didn't gain anything from the electoral college - check where the presidents for the first 40 years came from - either the largest southern state (VA) or the largest northern state (Mass). For that matter check how many of all 44 presidents so far come from small states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

The FF's did not create the E.C. to solve the problem of how to count slaves towards presidential elections. The FF's failed to predict the rise of political parties.

---

The basic problem is not counting slaves, that itself is a derived problem from the actual one that has been going for years - how to balance the power between the sides. The same exact issue about counting slaves had come up earlier when deciding taxes, but with the opposite stance by the two sides.
The south said that if slaves are counted for tax purposes, it is very unjust for the south to be taxed based on their people *and* their property, while the north is only taxed based on people.
When it became matter of representation, of course, the south wanted to count the slaves as people.

So, at the end, taxation and representation go together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I disagree. And as luck would have it, I'm the guy drawing the lines :)

We operate this board on the premise that everyone here can behave like a grown up. We like to have a place where we can talk to each other without people trolling and screaming along the way. Take Glen and me. I am from Belgium, and he is from Idaho. There is probably very, very little common ground between us in the realm of politics. That doesn't prevent us from discussing things without being abusive or hateful or deceitful.

This way, everyone wins.
Everybody except the trolls of course, but there are plenty of other habitats for them on the internet :)

---

No no, that's not what I meant. i wasn't advocating bash rules for SRP, I was commenting that I think no matter how far a discussion is allowed to go (and on the bash board, they are allowed to go far), a good universal rule for any forum is that if people who are not actually participating in the discussions are brought in (family, etc), it's a good reason for a time out. Said people are, of course, never brought into the discussion for a good reason, they're brought in by malicious posters to get at someone's throat. Not cool.

it's not intended to be the only rule, just one that can and should result in automatic time in the cooler in any forum, possibly permanent.

You're the mods on here, I have no interest in even providing an opinion about what's OK and what's not OK above and beyond that. I don't mind a good political discussion like we've had, as long as it doesn't degenerate into personal insults when someone gets frustrated.

Gugi --
Re: presidential elections, "In case of a tie, or the failure of any one man to get a majority, the House of Representatives was then to select the President from among the leaders. It was expected that once George Washington ceased to be President, the returns would normally be so scattered that the House would normally do the electing."
-Government: It's Structure and Interpretation, Williams, Irving G., p.60

"The odd method of choosing a President was the result of several compromises. It was assumed that Washington would be the first President, and the number of terms was not limited;, but the Convention, not anticipating the rise of a two-party system, expected a free-for-all after the General (Washington), each state voting for a 'favorite son,' and none obtaining a majority of electoral votes. Hence it provided for a final election by the House of Representatives where the voting would be by states, a majority of states being necessary to elect."
-The Oxford History Of The American People, Morrison, Samuel Eliot, p. 309.
I reiterate: slavery had nothing to do with the formation of the E.C. as it was expected that all presidential elections (after Washington stepped down) would be decided in the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote.

I just realized that I'm starting to get carried away with this stuff. I'm outta here. Apologies to Gugi and peace out, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Please don't take this the wrong way

It does amaze me that so many of you guys that are not Americans are so involved and concerned with our politics, and our way of life, so much so that you are offering your opinions...

Honestly I couldn't tell most of you who your leaders are, what their stances are, what your Health systems are, or Tax systems are or Welfare systems, and better yet I don't really care, unless I lived there, it really isn't my business...

---

You shouldn't be that surprised how people outside USA really have opinions on your elections. If it were just about your way of life or how you are doing there i really couldn't care less. I do know personally (from my work) many US citizen and they are great. Individual citizen are not always the same as the country goes. It's the same with russians or whatever.

The world is built these days the way that what happens somewhere else might have and does have effects here too. Both in good and bad. US have a strong influence on what goes on, even here, 'Shire of the middle earth'.
Not only on gas prices and such everyday things but major issues also. When doing my time in Kosova i found myself usually thinking about what the f### i'm doing there, away from my family. My wannabe-son-in-law recently, eh five months ago, came back from his 6 month service in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afg. Without a decision, made by GWB that would have never happened. I have friends who lost their lives. You see, you have a strong influence, both in good and bad.

So what can we do when all media is full, up to our neck, of US presidential elections, except to compare your candidates on the politicians we have here. What effect would they have on my daily life?
Of course it's not only US, but what happens in EU, China or whatever have their influences too. They are under discussion also, but maybe not in SRP.

So, as an outsider i think i do not have the need or right to tell my opinions about your candidates, but based on the facts i would say that the ones with opinions on rape like Romney would go down here forever.

in some strange way the world and specially the western world is linked to each other, more or less. When your economy goes well, it has positive influences here too, and vice-versa. You are not an isolated island away from the big bad world.
I'm not even try to argue about the health care system, as we've already done that in other threads.

As your president said: you have a best country in the world. Personally i think that every man in every country should think like that, about their own country. I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

BTW Birnando I saw the the Progress Party that is popular as being anti-immigration lost about 6 percentage points in the last cycle... How is that going to effect the laws in the next 3 years ????

Also doesn't that pretty much make it a 2 party system for Norway between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party ??

---

Yes, you are right, they have lost a fair bit of potential voters lately.
I think it is a case of not being the one setting the agenda.

The conservatives seems to be the one doing that on that side of the political spectrum these days.

Our election is one year away, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.

As to a two-party system per se, that would be a bit of a simplification to say we have a battle of those two parties only, but the main opponents are, as you said, the conservatives vs the labour party.
The difference is that none of them are remotely close to majority in the Parliament and relies heavily on support from other parties on their side of the whole Left/Right spectrum.

Today, the Labour party is the bigger part of our current 3-party Government.
The other 2 are the Socialistic left and a centrum oriented party that focuses on rural Norway.
From the looks of it, our conservative party will take power next year, but only with the support and participation of 2 or 3 more parties of the right wing. (The Christian Democrats and the Progress party. Possibly also a party called The Left, who are based pretty much in the centre of the spectrum)

To further complicate matters, some of the parties close to the centrum of the political spectrum can, and have, joined governments form both sides.
Messy stuff, I know:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sailor

So, as an outsider i think i do not have the need or right to tell my opinions about your candidates, but based on the facts i would say that the ones with opinions on rape like Romney would go down here forever.

---

Many Thanks, for proving my exact point with that statement, you have zero correct information there yet somehow you think you are informed.. :(

BTW your Government signed the treaties that put you into Kosovo, and Afganistan, maybe you should have been more concerned with who you voted into office and perhaps the ties that connect you to the US would be lessened... Seems your Government made its own choice to go


"Finnish cooperation with NATO is based on its longstanding policy of military non-alignment and a firm national political consensus. From this basis, Finland selects areas of cooperation with NATO that match joint objectives. The country monitors developments within NATO and continues to entertain the possibility of applying for membership of the Alliance in the future.
An important area of cooperation is the country’s support for NATO-led operations. Finland has worked alongside the Allies in security and peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo and currently has troops stationed in Afghanistan"

Besides those excellent points made by Sailor, we are all part of this straightrazor community are we not? Very few threads on politics come up that are not US-centric, so I also think what happens here is that non-USsians who want to participate in political discussion get drawn into the ones that come up. As I have said before, ignorance should be no barrier to expressing an opinion. If it was, talkback radio would have died a quick death many years ago.

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Birnando

Yes, you are right, they have lost a fair bit of potential voters lately.
I think it is a case of not being the one setting the agenda.

The conservatives seems to be the one doing that on that side of the political spectrum these days.

Our election is one year away, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.

As to a two-party system per se, that would be a bit of a simplification to say we have a battle of those two parties only, but the main opponents are, as you said, the conservatives vs the labour party.
The difference is that none of them are remotely close to majority in the Parliament and relies heavily on support from other parties on their side of the whole Left/Right spectrum.

Today, the Labour party is the bigger part of our current 3-party Government.
The other 2 are the Socialistic left and a centrum oriented party that focuses on rural Norway.
From the looks of it, our conservative party will take power next year, but only with the support and participation of 2 or 3 more parties of the right wing. (The Christian Democrats and the Progress party. Possibly also a party called The Left, who are based pretty much in the centre of the spectrum)

To further complicate matters, some of the parties close to the centrum of the political spectrum can, and have, joined governments form both sides.
Messy stuff, I know:)

---

The main point here as I see it is that all your parties MUST work and deal to achive the greater good,,

For the US all politics are centered around staying in politics... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Many Thanks, for proving my exact point with that statement, you have zero correct information there yet somehow you think you are informed.. :(

BTW your Government signed the treaties that put you into Kosovo, and Afganistan, maybe you should have been more concerned with who you voted into office and perhaps the ties that connect you to the US would be lessened... Seems your Government made its own choice to go

---

You got it wrong, so to say. Our government is to stand with our allies, both in good and bad, not to run away when things go wrong.
Although we have several opinions how things could have been avoided, that doesn't make us run away when it comes to our national interests only.
Down with the King, as to say, but the king ain't here for us.
Not related to your elections, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sailor

You got it wrong, so to say. Our government is to stand with our allies, both in good and bad, not to run away when things go wrong. Although we have several opinions how things could have been avoided, that doesn't make us run away when it comes to our national interests only.
Down with the King, as to say, but the king ain't here for us.

---

From my research Finland has played both sides of the coin for many many years, you haven't wanted to anger your Russian neighbors who have point blank said "Joining NATO would not be looked upon favorably" Yet you also want to be friends with the NATO countries and the US
Russia and the Former Soviet Union was ok with a non-comitted Finland and a neutral Sweden and figure that was an ok buffer from a NATO Norway...

This of course is what I read from news sources, and what I remember from living in Norway during the bad old Cold War days, I don't live in Finland now so it is hard for me to know the truth


One must be careful when they start looking through the eyes of the media, this is my only point,,,

You guys across the oceans are only seeing the US through the eyes of the media :( and from your statement about Romney and Rape something is being lost in the translation of even that bad source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

From my research Finland has played both sides of the coin for many many years, you haven't wanted to anger your Russian neighbors who have point blank said "Joining NATO would not be looked upon favorably" Yet you also want to be friends with the NATO countries and the US
Russia and the Former Soviet Union was ok with a non-comitted Finland and a neutral Sweden and figure that was an ok buffer from a NATO Norway...

This of course is what I read from news sources, and what I remember from living in Norway during the bad old Cold War days, I don't live in Finland now so it is hard for me to know the truth


One must be careful when they start looking through the eyes of the media, this is my only point,,,

You guys across the oceans are only seeing the US through the eyes of the media :(

---

Not only through the eyes of the media. I have family members living there.
I guess conversation about our foreign politics would be interesting (for me) but not much anyone else.
Things ain't always the way you see in the media. Me, working for the military know it quite well.
Howevers, every country needs allies. You shouldn't spit in the eye those who have stayed on your side, both in good and bad.
Of course it's not always for your greater good only. As said before, when thing are going ok in US, it has positive influences on EU & Australia and vice-versa. Without us you wouldn't have much friends out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Dude yer Old :rofl2: I only was around for Perot

---

Didn't say I was there, just that I knew of them.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Please don't take this the wrong way

It does amaze me that so many of you guys that are not Americans are so involved and concerned with our politics, and our way of life, so much so that you are offering your opinions...

Honestly I couldn't tell most of you who your leaders are, what their stances are, what your Health systems are, or Tax systems are or Welfare systems, and better yet I don't really care, unless I lived there, it really isn't my business...

---

Amen to that i have a britis friend that can tell me more about my chain of command in the usa than i can, it must be because we were so interesting at one point that they started spying on us lol jk but i give you guys credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

One must be careful when they start looking through the eyes of the media, this is my only point,,,

You guys across the oceans are only seeing the US through the eyes of the media :( and from your statement about Romney and Rape something is being lost in the translation of even that bad source

---

Wait, 99.9% of the us members do the same, and I think 100% of the participants in this thread were not present when those rape comments were made.
The difference, I guess, is that living in USA one could have a broader view just from the possibility of interacting with more people, but that's not a given. If you chose to live in a bubble (usually ideological), then you'll be poorly informed no matter where you reside.

As far as international politics, I would love to have more discussions on those, but sadly most americans lack the intellectual curiosity to seek information. When we've had the occasional such thread it draws almost exclusively international members.
I think it would be really good if the regular american routinely read news coverage from other countries, especially from the important geopolitical allies, rivals, and enemies, sprinkled with the occasional non-player. Like it or not the world is getting more and more connected, and choosing to not know what's happening is bound to end up hitting you in the pocket (universal common denominator).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

This of course is what I read from news sources, and what I remember from living in Norway during the bad old Cold War days, I don't live in Finland now so it is hard for me to know the truth

One must be careful when they start looking through the eyes of the media, this is my only point,,,

You guys across the oceans are only seeing the US through the eyes of the media :( and from your statement about Romney and Rape something is being lost in the translation of even that bad source

---

You left out the important part Gugi,,, The part about not living there which means you are saying the same thing as I am... you have to take in a ton of view points and decide on your own where the truth is

And Sailor attributed Akin's & Mourdock's idiocy to Romney with the rape comment, which is exactly what the Left Leaning media intended to happen, Romney said no such statement...

GOP Senate Candidate Akin Says Pregnancy ‘Rare’ in ‘Legitimate Rape’ - ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ry?id=17552263


My entire point was the by only seeing something through the lens of the media which has it's own bias you are not seeing the truth only anothers rendition of that truth...