I think there there could have been an element of a perceived attack against Christianity and a desire to defend the faith. The terrorists have regularly made this link so not a great leap if western politicians responded in the same terms.
Blair changed his religion after he left Downing Street.
But surely that suggests he had a religious belief WHILST in Downing Street or you would say he FOUND religion after leaving Downing Street.
He converted to Catholicism after he left Downing Street and became a left footer like his dear Cherie. I doubt very much he would have done it if he was seeking re-election.
Left footer ?
A member of the Catholic faith.
Don't you watch Downton? :-)
Never heard that one before in reference to Catholics. You live and learn.
With a lot of the Political focus being on the high unemployment rate, the economy and jobs most Americans are more concerned about whether they'll have a pension or health care. Let's take a step back, though, and look at how the two stand on another very important issue, the Environment.
During the past 4 years Obama has:
Approved several major new air pollution laws, including strict limits on mercury pollution and smog that drifts between states. Doubled the gas mileage rules for cars, copying California's greenhouse gas standards to require the US auto fleet to average 65.5 mpg within 12 years. Set the U.S Environment Protection Agency on course to require mandatory limits on greenhouse gases from new power plants by next year. Included $90 billion in the 2009 stimulus bill for energy projects, doubling wind and solar energy nmationwide.
Romney has opposed all of these measures saying "The EPA is a tool in the hands of the President to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal or nuclear".
Environmental groups say Obama has done as much as he could, given opposition to new environmental rules from Republicans in Congress.
This is just another example of the difference between the two men.
Blair changed his religion after he left Downing Street.
But surely that suggests he had a religious belief WHILST in Downing Street or you would say he FOUND religion after leaving Downing Street.
He converted to Catholicism after he left Downing Street and became a left footer like his dear Cherie. I doubt very much he would have done it if he was seeking re-election.
Left footer ?
A member of the Catholic faith.
Don't you watch Downton? :-)
Never heard that one before in reference to Catholics. You live and learn.
It's a phrase that comes from our own Dean Kiely ;-)
What bothers me is not who wins the next American election but how they deal with the “fiscal cliff” that is relentlessly steaming its way into the public consciousness. This will have a big effect on us and our economy, we should watch out for it and its repercussions. Like us the US has been through years of over spending not just at the federal level but also at state level, most states carry large deficits, California being the worst offender.
In 2011 the UK had the largest budget deficit in its history, tax raised was 38.9% of GDP and yet spending was 47.3% a difference of 8.4%. The tax raised by the American federal government was 26.9% of GDP and yet spending was 38.9% a short fall of 12%. This means that the structural changes required in the US are substantially greater than they are here and to add some context that difference in Greece it was 11.7%.
Over here we had a huge budget deficit and we got a change of government to address that, it would have been in the conservative’s and liberal’s best long term interest to throw the election. cuts that have taken place are being attributed to the conservative/Liberal coalition and not the over spending Labour party that created them. In the US just as here the Decorates would be better off long term losing this election, let Obama deal with the “fiscal cliff” and pick it up in four years time, if he lasts that long.
Loco - do you read any of the output from Lombard Street Research? They've done a recent piece of work on this which is both fascinating & frightening.
Loco - do you read any of the output from Lombard Street Research? They've done a recent piece of work on this which is both fascinating & frightening.
No I haven't seen it TelMc32, I'm sure I find it as you describe if I knew where to look.
Basically, under current plans, Bush's tax cuts of 2001 & Obama's stimulus measures are both due to expire next year. Unless the new government, whoever they are, can come up with a new, ratified deal within weeks of taking over, then a 5% tightening of GDP is due to start kicking in.
The impact on the UK and Europe is only likely to be a further extension of recession/stagnation for a few more years to come.
How a guy who thinks the word is 6000 years old can be a front runner for the position of the most powerful man in the world boggles my mind.
As far as I'm concerned no Mormon should ever be allowed to run for office as they are clearly far too gullible to be given any sort of responsibility. The thought of one of them in the Oval Office makes my blood run cold.
The guy has done amazing in business and held his own in all the debates and stayed true to his believes so I don't think gullible is a word I would use to some him up. Yes I am a Mormon . I think the only thing I am gullible with is following England and thinking we can win the World Cup.
It's quite sad looking at Mitt Romney's approach towards becoming President. I think it says far more about the system in place the the man himself. Romney waspreviously a pro-choice politician interested in effecting environmental change and introuduced healthcare into his state, and now his position has completely changed as it's the only way he can get into power. The amount of control outside influences, primarily wealthy, powerful benefactors and uneducated, fear-ridden voters renders the entire race irrelevant. Maybe Romney actually is pro-choice; but he certainly won't get Bible-belt votes if he says that, and he can't afford to lose his sure-thing votes with the amount of swing states in play. His only strategy is to pander to the usual suspects and try and create a policy that will win over the undecided voters. Nowhere in that is what's best for the nation, only what's best for getting into and staying in office. It's no wonder nothing ever gets better when a system of adversarial politics makes the candidates mouthpieces for their party traditions rather than individuals with a real plan. I vote for going to sleep for 15 years myself
How a guy who thinks the word is 6000 years old can be a front runner for the position of the most powerful man in the world boggles my mind.
As far as I'm concerned no Mormon should ever be allowed to run for office as they are clearly far too gullible to be given any sort of responsibility. The thought of one of them in the Oval Office makes my blood run cold.
The guy has done amazing in business and held his own in all the debates and stayed true to his believes so I don't think gullible is a word I would use to some him up. Yes I am a Mormon . I think the only thing I am gullible with is following England and thinking we can win the World Cup.
Yes, he's done well in business. But where on earth are you getting this "stayed true to his believes (sic)" from???
The man makes Cameron look like he's straight as an arrow, with the number of u-turns he has done. I have nothing against his religion...each to their own, so long as they don't get pious & try to impose it on others, but there is no way this man can be trusted from one day to the next.
How a guy who thinks the word is 6000 years old can be a front runner for the position of the most powerful man in the world boggles my mind.
As far as I'm concerned no Mormon should ever be allowed to run for office as they are clearly far too gullible to be given any sort of responsibility. The thought of one of them in the Oval Office makes my blood run cold.
The guy has done amazing in business and held his own in all the debates and stayed true to his believes so I don't think gullible is a word I would use to some him up. Yes I am a Mormon . I think the only thing I am gullible with is following England and thinking we can win the World Cup.
Amazing in business? Yep thanks to his dad's money.
Don't know how you can say he stuck true to his beliefs. He's completely contradicted himself a few times during one debate. He's just doing all he can to get votes, he seems like a bloke desperate to be president (didn't his father run when he was a boy?) and will do anything to get there. Remember even the state he's been voted as senator once are overwhelmingly in favour of Obama. Says it all for me really.
Fingers crossed for Obama otherwise the Mexico gag rule will come back into force and we will loose our USAID funding. I work for an international sexual health charity and they are an important donor to support our work
How a guy who thinks the word is 6000 years old can be a front runner for the position of the most powerful man in the world boggles my mind.
As far as I'm concerned no Mormon should ever be allowed to run for office as they are clearly far too gullible to be given any sort of responsibility. The thought of one of them in the Oval Office makes my blood run cold.
The guy has done amazing in business and held his own in all the debates and stayed true to his believes so I don't think gullible is a word I would use to some him up. Yes I am a Mormon . I think the only thing I am gullible with is following England and thinking we can win the World Cup.
Yes, he's done well in business. But where on earth are you getting this "stayed true to his believes (sic)" from???
The man makes Cameron look like he's straight as an arrow, with the number of u-turns he has done. I have nothing against his religion...each to their own, so long as they don't get pious & try to impose it on others, but there is no way this man can be trusted from one day to the next.
I'm quite a Manchester Liberal economically myself but still want Romney to lose, partly because the republicans will take the blame for the cuts but also
Basically, under current plans, Bush's tax cuts of 2001 & Obama's stimulus measures are both due to expire next year. Unless the new government, whoever they are, can come up with a new, ratified deal within weeks of taking over, then a 5% tightening of GDP is due to start kicking in.
The impact on the UK and Europe is only likely to be a further extension of recession/stagnation for a few more years to come.
Thank you, it was interesting. I couldn't use the 'cliff o meter' but they provided a chart.
I was reading these articles from the Economist and also some tax and GDP figures;
There are a few more on there too if your interested.
One thing to note is that should Obama win he'll have to negotiate with a democrat congress, the very thing that caused so much brinkmanship previously over the budget. I'm not that good with the American political system having only glanced at it years ago and only really as a comparison to our own however, I do believe that should Obama win he'll be pretty much a lame duck unless the republicans can win some more seats (I think in two years time, could be wrong) in congress. Of course a lot can happen in two years and those links above show he wont have two years as crisis after crisis will hit him. One thing is for sure, whoever wins will be a very busy bunny indeed.
I share other peoples suspicion of Romney too, I don't like politicians at the best of times but he certainly is one of those slippery S.O.B.'s.
Loco - you've got that the wrong way round. Obama is a democrat, congress is Republican-dominated at the moment. In order to mitigate against Obama becoming even more of a lame duck in his second term, you want the democrats to win more seats in congress.
Mind you, there's so little between them that it's easy to get confused!
Oh, but you did'nt mind your taxes going toward the farcical wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on achieving what?
An Iraqi government that is now pro-Iranian and Afghanistan as fucked up as it has ever been through its long, tortuous history. Well worth the money and deaths, eh?
So funny how none of this stuff troubled you wingnuts until a black Democrat entered the White House, whilst Bush was in charge fucking the country over you Tea Party morons never uttered a word.
Good points. It is lucky that the White house has a good guy in place now ,who wouldn't dream using his military might in helping in the destruction of Libya ,and banging hard on the door of Syria or surround Iran or use predator drones to kill innocents in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen. You are right we are all much safer now. It isnt two dogs with one head and no one needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Phew. The first casualty of war is the truth. We all know that and most choose to ignore history as they chest beat and blame the so called oppostion party. Opposition parties exist only outside the republican /democrat BS. Foreign policy never changes. Havent you noticed yet? Opposition parties arent allowed a voice or a platform to the people because they do offer change and the two dogs with one head will never allow that. Wake up time .
Loco - you've got that the wrong way round. Obama is a democrat, congress is Republican-dominated at the moment. In order to mitigate against Obama becoming even more of a lame duck in his second term, you want the democrats to win more seats in congress.
Mind you, there's so little between them that it's easy to get confused!
Oops wrong way around eh, I did say that I dont know much about American politics, I guess that much is obvious now!
I dont want anyone in this election, it's not my concern. I do care about how they deal with the economic situation that will hit whoever gets in almost straight away (as everyone here should). This will potentially have a big impact on us and is a cause for concern all over Europe.
What I was trying to point out is this; should Obama win he will have an economic situation to deal with straight away (as would Romney) and his opposition control the congress making that very difficult. He will still have to deal with a budget deficit and a wave of benefit enhancements that the country can ill afford. Whoever wins will be in for a rough ride but if Obama gets in it will be rougher because of the situation with congress.
Personally I would by nature go for the Hayekian/Freedman approach which Romney espouses but there is just too much more to it than that. What I want is stability but I dont see any of that coming whoever wins.
I have not ever heard a politician that doesn't change what they say to win power. And it is always a lot worse than they thought it was going to be when they win power so they can break all their promises and that's no matter what party they are.
How a guy who thinks the word is 6000 years old can be a front runner for the position of the most powerful man in the world boggles my mind.
As far as I'm concerned no Mormon should ever be allowed to run for office as they are clearly far too gullible to be given any sort of responsibility. The thought of one of them in the Oval Office makes my blood run cold.
The guy has done amazing in business and held his own in all the debates and stayed true to his believes so I don't think gullible is a word I would use to some him up. Yes I am a Mormon . I think the only thing I am gullible with is following England and thinking we can win the World Cup.
Maybe he's faking his religion too then. Would make sense really as despite the so-called separation of Church and State the reality is that anyone who isn't a Christian (or puts up a good pretense of it) has zero chance of election.
All on hold because of Sandy but, this sort of thing helps the incumbent asuming reasonable crisis management.
Assuming Obama doesn't make a pig's ear of it then the Democrats should be able to do a 'compare and contrast' against Hurricane Katrina and Dubya's (mis)handling of that.
And it looks like Mitts chickens are coming home to roost. You can distort facts but lying becomes indefensible, especially when those that are your natural supporters statistically expose you as Chrysler have.
The religion thing is in contrast to our own set up. Ed Milliband is Jewish but he's said he doesn't believe in God. Clearly no American would have the remotest chance of getting elected if they had owned up to that.
I love Obama but even I have to admit that he has to be the luckiest politician alive, in 2008 the economy collapsed and McCain imploded.
In 2012 Sandy devastates the north-east states and Romney's climate change denialism and on-the-record call for FEMA to be dismantled and its role to be privatised is going to end his already slender chances.
As Napoleon said, "Don't bring me good Generals, bring me lucky ones."
Would have been even luckier if he had inherited a decent economy and not two wars though.
Someone said that to him in the WH soon after his election. His response?
"If it weren't for the two wars and the economy cratering I would not be here in the first place."
But don't forget that he has continued one war and only ended the other after an agreement was signed by Bash (sic) and the Iraqis to have complete withdrawal of troops when they did. Obomba (sic) and his allies has also destroyed Libya and are trying to do so in other countries. He has also spent more in four years than the other stooge in 8. No attempts at deficit reduction, etc etc. more bombs etc etc. Doesnt matter who's in p[ower, the finger pointing is for the sheeple, to make them feel better about their support of their parties.
Comments
During the past 4 years Obama has:
Approved several major new air pollution laws, including strict limits on mercury pollution and smog that drifts between states.
Doubled the gas mileage rules for cars, copying California's greenhouse gas standards to require the US auto fleet to average 65.5 mpg within 12 years.
Set the U.S Environment Protection Agency on course to require mandatory limits on greenhouse gases from new power plants by next year.
Included $90 billion in the 2009 stimulus bill for energy projects, doubling wind and solar energy nmationwide.
Romney has opposed all of these measures saying "The EPA is a tool in the hands of the President to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal or nuclear".
Environmental groups say Obama has done as much as he could, given opposition to new environmental rules from Republicans in Congress.
This is just another example of the difference between the two men.
In 2011 the UK had the largest budget deficit in its history, tax raised was 38.9% of GDP and yet spending was 47.3% a difference of 8.4%. The tax raised by the American federal government was 26.9% of GDP and yet spending was 38.9% a short fall of 12%. This means that the structural changes required in the US are substantially greater than they are here and to add some context that difference in Greece it was 11.7%.
Over here we had a huge budget deficit and we got a change of government to address that, it would have been in the conservative’s and liberal’s best long term interest to throw the election. cuts that have taken place are being attributed to the conservative/Liberal coalition and not the over spending Labour party that created them. In the US just as here the Decorates would be better off long term losing this election, let Obama deal with the “fiscal cliff” and pick it up in four years time, if he lasts that long.
http://www.lombardstreetresearch.com/download_generic.php?Generic_Id=34
Basically, under current plans, Bush's tax cuts of 2001 & Obama's stimulus measures are both due to expire next year. Unless the new government, whoever they are, can come up with a new, ratified deal within weeks of taking over, then a 5% tightening of GDP is due to start kicking in.
The impact on the UK and Europe is only likely to be a further extension of recession/stagnation for a few more years to come.
The man makes Cameron look like he's straight as an arrow, with the number of u-turns he has done. I have nothing against his religion...each to their own, so long as they don't get pious & try to impose it on others, but there is no way this man can be trusted from one day to the next.
Don't know how you can say he stuck true to his beliefs. He's completely contradicted himself a few times during one debate. He's just doing all he can to get votes, he seems like a bloke desperate to be president (didn't his father run when he was a boy?) and will do anything to get there. Remember even the state he's been voted as senator once are overwhelmingly in favour of Obama. Says it all for me really.
I was reading these articles from the Economist and also some tax and GDP figures;
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/05/americas-economy-0
http://www.economist.com/node/21554208
There are a few more on there too if your interested.
One thing to note is that should Obama win he'll have to negotiate with a democrat congress, the very thing that caused so much brinkmanship previously over the budget. I'm not that good with the American political system having only glanced at it years ago and only really as a comparison to our own however, I do believe that should Obama win he'll be pretty much a lame duck unless the republicans can win some more seats (I think in two years time, could be wrong) in congress. Of course a lot can happen in two years and those links above show he wont have two years as crisis after crisis will hit him. One thing is for sure, whoever wins will be a very busy bunny indeed.
I share other peoples suspicion of Romney too, I don't like politicians at the best of times but he certainly is one of those slippery S.O.B.'s.
Mind you, there's so little between them that it's easy to get confused!
Oh, but you did'nt mind your taxes going toward the farcical wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on achieving what?
An Iraqi government that is now pro-Iranian and Afghanistan as fucked up as it has ever been through its long, tortuous history. Well worth the money and deaths, eh?
So funny how none of this stuff troubled you wingnuts until a black Democrat entered the White House, whilst Bush was in charge fucking the country over you Tea Party morons never uttered a word.
Good points. It is lucky that the White house has a good guy in place now ,who wouldn't dream using his military might in helping in the destruction of Libya ,and banging hard on the door of Syria or surround Iran or use predator drones to kill innocents in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen. You are right we are all much safer now. It isnt two dogs with one head and no one needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Phew.
The first casualty of war is the truth. We all know that and most choose to ignore history as they chest beat and blame the so called oppostion party. Opposition parties exist only outside the republican /democrat BS. Foreign policy never changes. Havent you noticed yet? Opposition parties arent allowed a voice or a platform to the people because they do offer change and the two dogs with one head will never allow that. Wake up time .
I dont want anyone in this election, it's not my concern. I do care about how they deal with the economic situation that will hit whoever gets in almost straight away (as everyone here should). This will potentially have a big impact on us and is a cause for concern all over Europe.
What I was trying to point out is this; should Obama win he will have an economic situation to deal with straight away (as would Romney) and his opposition control the congress making that very difficult. He will still have to deal with a budget deficit and a wave of benefit enhancements that the country can ill afford. Whoever wins will be in for a rough ride but if Obama gets in it will be rougher because of the situation with congress.
Personally I would by nature go for the Hayekian/Freedman approach which Romney espouses but there is just too much more to it than that. What I want is stability but I dont see any of that coming whoever wins.
In 2012 Sandy devastates the north-east states and Romney's climate change denialism and on-the-record call for FEMA to be dismantled and its role to be privatised is going to end his already slender chances.
As Napoleon said, "Don't bring me good Generals, bring me lucky ones."
"If it weren't for the two wars and the economy cratering I would not be here in the first place."
Someone said that to him in the WH soon after his election. His response?
"If it weren't for the two wars and the economy cratering I would not be here in the first place."
But don't forget that he has continued one war and only ended the other after an agreement was signed by Bash (sic) and the Iraqis to have complete withdrawal of troops when they did. Obomba (sic) and his allies has also destroyed Libya and are trying to do so in other countries. He has also spent more in four years than the other stooge in 8. No attempts at deficit reduction, etc etc. more bombs etc etc. Doesnt matter who's in p[ower, the finger pointing is for the sheeple, to make them feel better about their support of their parties.