Metal Reviews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSTezkpb0mU

This could possibly be the lowest and greatest moment of American politics:

Chuck Norris endorses presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

I like how Chuck Norris now looks like Tim Allen's gay brother.

And how's the man going to put the IRS out of business? Send a rapidly ageing more-wooden-than-Anakin-in-Star-Wars 'actor' around their headquarters to wave a walking stick?

Anyone that actually votes for a politician based on their tv adverts = Scum

Wow. Absolutely fucking wow. From what I've heard that guy makes Bush seem completely intelligent and reasonable by comparison. Another bible thumper in the White House is the last thing the US and the world need at the moment. Considering the fact that either him or that warmonger Giuliani is likely to be the Republican candidate, I would rather move to the Moon than vote republican in the coming elections (if I was american, of course)

lol what a commercial, If only I've seen this before...lol

In my opinion Huckabee has more integrity and is more compassionate than the two front runners, Giuliani and Romney, who I believe to be very hateful individuals. He doesn't have the same "IF YOU ARE ILLEGAL WE ARE COMING TO KILL YOU!!!1" attitude, and he doesn't construct a sentence using the method "A verb, a noun, and 9/11" as Joe Biden said to much hilarity in some debate or another.

That said he is still a republican, and therefore hopefully will get what's coming to him.

*leaves this deliberately ambiguous *

This quite possibly the worst crop of canidates the Republicans have drummed up ever. At least Bush had the pedigree of his family name to run with. Plus, George Senior wasn't all that bad.

Huckabee- George W. Bush redux. Certainly more intelligent, of course a sponge is more intelligent than Dubya, but is going to base his entire campaign around being an ambassador of God. The Illuminati Ticket. A dangerous candidate, and he could go all the way, especially in this Holy War climate the world is in.

Romney-mainstream America is more likely to recoil in fear of a Mormon candidate. In fact, attacks of his faith have already begun. The polygamy thing will be an issue, even though he doesn't practice it.

Giulliani-9-11,9-11,9-11,9-11,9-11,9-11. Being married multiple times, one of those being to a family member, will make him an easy target to discredit in the eyes of the heartland. Some people still find divorce to be immoral. pat Roberston already ruffled some feathers in the eyes of the American Taliban by endorsing him.

McCain-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Iran is more likely to have a nuclear weapon than this guy standing a chance. He's the Republican version of Howard Dean.

Thompson-too lazy, and doesn't have the commitment to do heavy campaining. I suspect it's only a matter of time before he drops out. A very smart guy, and is very likeable, but this isn't his game.

Ron Paul-running as an Independent, but is perhaps more true to the values of the Republican party than the rest of them. Proposing to do away with the IRS will be the end of him.

I don't like the Ron Paul fad that seems to be preoccupying so many people. He's right on the war and deserves credit for being willing to say that in a room full of Republicans, but man, he's the scariest free market zealot that I've seen in mainstream politics for ages.

McCain I think seems pretty weak in many ways, some of his speaking is almost as cringe inducing as Bush, but I actually admire his views on torture a lot.

What do the Americans here think of the Democratic candidates?

GO KUCINICH says I, regardless of whether he believes in UFOs or not. I think it's pretty fucking terrible the way candidates can have their campaign completely grounded from the moment it starts simply because the media thinks that Hilary or Obama or whoever is a better story. Had coverage been divided more equally who knows who could be leading right now. The same goes for the Republicans. I can't stand Tancredo or Hunter but I think they have a point when they say they're being ignored to an extent that is embarrassing.

Was waiting for a thread on 2008 elections but didn't want to start it myself

I don't really think it's a fad at all, but I think some of the media attention that's been given to his campaign has tried to make it seem as that being all it is. That's frustrating, but not really surprising. To be completely honest, Rio, I'm a bit offended that someone from the UK (or any other country) would come into a thread like this make such suggestions about what's best for this country, zealotry, etc. Perhaps that isn't what you were trying to say or suggest, so I'll apologize in advance if I've taken what you've said out of context. Anyway, don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with you taking an interest in our election(s). In fact, it's something I wish more Americans would actually do whether they actually vote or not. But to be honest, I don't think you really have a clue what's best for this country, what our problems here are, or why Ron Paul has taken the positions he has. By the same token, I'm not going to say what's right for the UK or what will or won't work there.

At any rate, I'm sure Ron Paul's ideas are off putting to many, especially seeing as how so many have forgotten or never understood what America was about in the first place. Personally, I find him to be one of the last hopes for a dying country that's on its way down, down, down into uncharted (for us) depths. So maybe you can excuse me for wanting a stable currency that's actually backed by gold and isn't getting more and more worthless by the minute, wanting more power returned to the states (and a federal government that isn't telling me I have to wear a seatbelt - example only), an end to income taxes and the IRS which are both frauds... and the list goes on. Yes, I want my government to protect me, but not at the expense of my rights and freedom. Those are, in fact, what I want protected the most. Yet everyday, I watch as most people here don't even bat an eyelash as they're gradually taken away from all of us. I guess the latest episode of "Survivor" or texting on their cellphones is just that more important.

*EDITED*

Rio,

I'm curious what's so wrong with being a "free market zealot", as you put it? How is it worse than being a pro-war zealot on a power trip, like all the other Republican candidates are?

I suspect you know very little about why Ron Paul believes what he does about the economy. Pray tell, are you familiar with how the Federal Reserve operates and how it came into being? Are you aware of the rapidly approaching collapse of the dollar (which will be followed by the collapse of almost every other major fiat currency in the world, including the pound and euro)? Did you know the federal income tax is unconstitutional and also that the income tax Americans pay only goes to pay the interest on our ever-increasing national debt? Did you know that our Medicare and Social Security programs consume almost half of the federal budget and that those programs are virtually bankrupt and the trust fund depleted?

The only thing that can stave of the impending economic crisis in the United States are free market policies, lower taxes, and significantly less spending. I'm sure, living in the UK, that you think having subsidised medical care and all those other nice social welfare programs are great. But the fact of the matter is, we just flat out can't afford it. The programs that the Democrats (as well as many other Republicans) would like to implement will bring this country to its metaphorical knees before you can blink.

To speak of Ron Paul's economic positions in the manner that you do suggests that you are extremely ignorant about the economic problems the US is facing (but so are most Americans, so I can't fault you too much for that, not even living here).

As for the Democratic candidates, I think Clinton and Obama are both novelty candidates. Both of them will get a lot of votes and support simply because of that. I think that says a lot about the mindset of many American voters and it's also something that is very troubling to me. Unfortunately, novelty candidates are tough to beat. The only Republican candidate who would have a reasonable chance at beating either of them in the general election is Ron Paul. The rest of the Republicans are quite despised by the mainstream, despite what the media reports. If Clinton wins office, then by the time she finishes her 8 years (and she will get a second term- incumbents usually do), this country will have been under the rule of the same two families for almost 30 years- a frightening prospect for a nation that prides itself on having measures in place to prevent anyone from gaining too much power. If Obama gets elected, we are stuck with a guy who has absolutely no experience and whose platform is centered around benefiting a very narrow group of people. I think John Edwards would have been a more serious candidate for the Democrats to throw their support behind, but at this point, things do not look good for him. Political parties are funny things.

I wanted to support Kucinich because he's from my state but when he went to Syria and went on Al-Jazeera television and said some pretty idiotic stuff, I lost any respect for him I had.

Huckabee is intelligent when it comes to campaign issues but appears like a complete idiot about everything else.

Romney = douche.

Guiliani, I want to like but I think it's all too much of a facade.

Obama is who I put my vote behind. He has elaborated his tax plan and I really like how it sounds. He is intelligent and charismatic. I'm just afraid if he gets elected he'll get shot for being black and we'll be stuck with his vice president.

Clinton is a dumb bitch. Her ebonics campaign in the south made me want to vomit and showed how much of an idiot she is.

Edwards is boring.

Edit: Ron Paul's free market zealot-ness will only hurt our economy more. Capitalism is a mongering beast that only gets worse the more leash its given. America needs some good old socialism like in Europe.

As for his libertarian state government views, allowing states to decide what they want just divides America into something akin to the EU. Ron Paul got ripped apart on 'The View' by Whoopi Goldberg about abortion. He said each state should choose abortion's legality. She replied 'making it illegal in certain states will only force wealthy kids to travel across border and force poorer kids to just have a kid they can't take care of. Then she asked how can the church be advocating illegalizing abortion if they aren't willing to help take care of the kids with no care it would bring into the world.

I like the two that want America to GTFO Iraq. Although tbh I doubt either of them have a chance.

I like Ron Paul's views on abortion actually because even though he personally thinks its weird to have someone draw a line in between not-human/human he's willing to let the states decide and not impose that view on everyone.

Traptunderice,

Why will Ron Paul's policies hurt our economy? Are you living on another planet? We can't afford the socialist programs we do have! We certainly can't afford to expand to offer more. Please, be a responsible and informed citizen and read up on the subject.

And you may also want to read the Constitution while you're at it, as you clearly don't seem to be familiar with it at all. The states are supposed to have all the rights not enumerated to the federal government. That includes the right to decide topics like abortion. Abortion is not a federal issue. Let the states put it to a referendum and those who want to keep it legal can turn out to vote for their right to have an abortion. Also, poor kids already don't have abortions. They are cost-prohibitive in and of themselves. Getting transportation across state lines is not nearly as expensive as the procedure itself and no doubt Planned Parenthood would pick up the ball and arrange for bus rides out of state for people who wanted to get an abortion.

Our government has become far too centralised and is a mess of bureaucracy at the federal level. That makes everything more expensive and less efficient. The federal government has far too much power over our lives. It should be our representatives at the state level- people who live in their state and know better than DC politicians what the people of their state want- who should be determining what laws are best for each state. Blanket legislation over a diverse country of 300+ million people is never going to make anybody happy. If some people want to live in a state that bans abortion, let them. What's it to you? If you want a lot of social programs, then go live in a state that has them and don't demand tax dollars from those who don't. Having states is intended to give people options. The federal government only takes them away.

A few things.

Firstly, what happens politically in the US affects everyone. I'm sure you know this, so I'm not sure what offends you. There is no denying this, and I'm not going to apologize for believing I have a right to talk about it. Just as I feel I have a right to talk about political developments in China and India, as these are going to start affecting us all pretty soon as well.

Secondly, the USA is huge, and astonishingly diverse. In terms of being well situated to speak about the situation in different parts, I'm not entirely sure that someone in the rural deep south is going to understand issues that are held as incredibly important in San Francisco more deeply than a someone from London would, for example. Similarly, a British farmer is probably going to be more qualified to talk about US farm subsidies than a hypothetical San Franciscan, for example.

Thirdly, I currently live in America, and work and do research in America. So I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I do have a level of knowlede about some of the problems you have.

If I knocked my girlfriend up I could afford to get her an abortion but if I had to drive somewhere I may not be able to afford the gas to make it.

Our government does have too much bureaucracy but I don't see how just letting individual states decide what they want would change that. The states are or would become just as convoluted as the central government is now. So if I don't like what gets voted for in my states I should just move out of it?

Obama's tax plan calls for a lot of social welfare and tax breaks for those who can't afford them and it comes from a rarely untapped source: the wealthy who can afford to squander it or give it to help others.

What is truly helping our fiat currency is the complete disregard for budgeting from this administration. Writing blank checks that we can't afford to have cashed is what is hurting our economy. I don't think Ron Paul is going to just end up stopping that.

Hm, it probably isn't. I'm not a supporter of either.




I have heard several arguments put against the Federal Reserve, and am not going to defend it. I am indeed very aware of the unconstitutionality of the income tax, as well as the ideological commitment held by the US political establishment towards "small government" and tax cuts. However I think they are irrational. As for medicare and social security, the extent to which these have been provided by American employers have declined and are declining, so I suspect the strain on federal mechanisms can at least be partly blamed on the "looser regulations" that enabled this to happen.



Sorry but I just don't get this. You are vastly, vastly wealthier than the UK, so why can't you afford it? Once again I think it's down to the attitude you hold towards the income tax, and other revenue generating mechanisms. How are free market policies going to stave off the impending crisis? Isn't it the free market that allowed so many people to be conned into unaffordable home loans? Isn't it the free market that determines the price of oil? (Yes I know you can bring up OPEC, but I'm not convinced. Oil prices are high because there is demand for it, and there is no control on them)



Well, I'm not so sure about that. I'm sure a lot of Americans are aware of the economic problems they are facing because they see it in their wage checks, benefits packages and in their job security. Despite the miraculous economic growth heralded by Reaganomics there's plenty of evidence pointing to a very small, even negligible increase in real wages and as I mentioned above, a decline in the non-wage services offered by employers, such as health insurance. How would Ron Paul stop this? I admit, I'm not so familiar with his positions on these individual issues, so it could be that they are closer to my own beliefs than I think. But from the support he gets and the way he speaks, I suspect I would disagree with him on it.

If you can't afford an abortion and all the costs inherent in that, then why aren't you taking the necessary precautions in the first place? At the very least, start saving your money just in case the need should arise for you to have to travel to get an abortion. In most cases, you'd have to travel a ways anyway, since not every small town and city has an abortion clinic.



At the state and local level, people have much greater control over the government. For one, state lobbies are no where near as influential as national lobbies, so the voice of the citizen matters much more. Second, the people you elect to serve in your state legislator have to live in your district. The candidates you will vote for are your neighbours and people who know very well the attitudes of their community and the problems faced there. Thirdly, states do not have the ability to print money willy-nilly and are held more accountable for their spending and taxing. State governments are generally (though not always) more fiscally responsible.

At least when states have rights, if you don't like what happens in your state, you can vote with you feet and move. But what if legislation is passed for the whole country that you don't like? Take abortion, for example. Suppose abortion were illegal everywhere. Now, instead of going to the next state over, you have to go all the way to Canada! That's certainly much more expensive. Or suppose you wholeheartedly supported a ban on handguns, even though the federal government doesn't prohibit them. You certainly wouldn't want to live in Indiana or Vermont! But you might want to live in Washington DC or Illinois where the laws are much more strict.

Historically, government has worked better when the states had more powers left to them and the federal government only concerned themselves with those things the Constitution gave it responsibility over. Unfortunately, a great deal of what goes on at the federal level is unconstitutional and great pains are taken to keep these facts largely unknown to the public.



The wealthy are already disproportionately taxed. Aside from the immorality of taxing in general, what Obama either doesn't realise or doesn't care to think about is the fact that taxing the wealthy is very problematic. I'm assuming when you mean wealthy, you are talking about billionaires, not people who make six figures.

The wealthy elite of this country are enormously powerful and influence the government in a way you can't even begin to imagine. No president will ever succeed in taxing them to the extent needed to support the social programs Obama is championing. Most of these people are heavily taxed through capital gains; however, if taxes get higher than what they are willing to pay, they will simply move most of their wealth offshore where it can't be taxed. And most of them already keep the majority of their wealth outside of the reach of the IRS anyway. Any tax increases aimed at the wealthy will only effectively tax the upper-middle class and we can't afford to have those people taxed. I would venture to say that the upper middle class is more of a boon to our economy than the wealthy elite.

Obama's plans are very idealistic and unrealistic. If he is elected, you probably will see only a few, if any, come to fruition.




No, that's not correct. While overspending and a high import to export ratio are certainly to blame, that is not the bulk of the problem. Currently, virtually everything we buy from other countries is on credit. Those countries have purchased our bonds and when those bonds mature, they will want their money and we will not be able to pay. So what do we do then? Well, we print more money of course! This causes the inflation rate to go up and then the Federal Reserve will mess with interest rates again, but there will come a point where no trick in the world is going to keep out economy from falling apart. Even if we stopped overspending and stopped importing more than we export today, it still would not solve the problem. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve (a private bank that was created very sneakily, I might add) and return our currency to the gold standard, which will increase the stability of the dollar and the confidence in it. The problem is much more complex than mainstream sources let on, simply because most people find the real problem too confusing to follow. If you go to the bookstore, you will find an entire section on the impending and irreversible collapse of the US economy which will explain the problem far better than I can.

Sorry but this sounds like ideology to me, rather than empirically based conclusions. In many ways I am a dogmatic ideologue myself, so I am not criticizing this fact alone. Simply that to say other people are juust ignorant about economics seems to be pushing it, especially when you're ranting about socialism and the immorality of taxation and other terms that are loaded with ideological significance. Economics is by far the least precise of the sciences, and the idea that the free market is the answer to every crisis has caused a lot of upheaval and poverty.

Rio,

I will respond to you tomorrow, since I will probably spend a lot of time addressing everything you said... and I am supposed to be writing an exam right now.