Whether or not you are a US resident, who do you think will win the upcoming US presidential election and why?

Obama Ad Avoids Criticizing Palin

WASHINGTON (Aug. 30) -- Since Sen. Barack Obama distanced himself from his campaign's first tough reaction to presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, his team seems to be figuring out the best way to direct its fire.

Watch TV add here: http://news.aol.com/elections/article/obama-ad-avoids-criticizing-palin/154303?icid=200100397x1208590084x1200485863

I'd hate to be in a dark alley with the gun-toting Ms. Palin headed in my direction.

I think the United States would be better served by her going to fight in Afghanistan than by having her in the White House, under any circumstances.

Two sources tell NBC’s Mike Levine that -- as of Friday when Gov. Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate -- no one had been sent to Wasilla, Alaska, to look through the archives of Palin's hometown newspaper, the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. And, according to one source, no extensive research into the city council records from her 10 years on the council and then as mayor of Wasilla has been completed. Aides were sent to pour over that newspaper AFTER Palin was picked.

Sarah Palin Makes History as First Female Vice Presidential Nominee of Republican Party

GOP Candidate's Acceptance Speech Defends Experience, Targets Barack Obama

Full version of Sarah Palin’s speech available here: 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5720910&page=1

I think Mr. Obama will win the american election and he will be the first black man to become President of the United States. I think it's time for a real change in american leadership and Obama represents in a better way this indispensable change.

Not only United States, in my opinion, need this renewal of politics but the entire world need it.

I had enough of Mr. Bush and the Neocon; for me they are a real danger for peace in the world because they are arrogants and liairs; I haven't forgotten that the war against Iraq was a terrible criminal mistake based on false statement.

It's a real scandal that Mr. Bush ruled Usa for two electoral mandate; in my opinion he deserves an impeachment for his falsehood.

Obama is not black, he is bi-racial. And I think if anyone were interested enough to look into it, I'm sure we would discover that there have been other U.S. presidents who were thought of as white but have other racial components, besides white, in their ancestry.

Isn't it true that the United States's ostentatiously white Vice President, Dick Cheney, is a shirt-tail cousin of Barack Obama?

I am at a loss for words that this country could put Obama in control of this great country.  I am no racist and I vote for the best man regardless of party.  Frankly Obama doesnt have nearly enough experience to be a commander and chief and I have listened to his many speeches as of late and he never talks about solutions. And yes I have to admit  his church affiliation is valid and truly scary.  This countries problems  are far deeper than George Bush.  Are house of cards has gotten a little taller every 10 year cycle since 1960.  We are all to blame from the lowest class to the sky.  Doesnt anyone realize that are moment of prosperity with Clinton was almost solely based on a .com blast from insanity?? Did people forget that around 350 operatives which took decades to get inside are middle eastern friends back door were compromised before Bush took office and most of whom were taken off the map within days.  Then 9/11.....whos fault??  And what has happened here since that tragic day??   And the bleeding hearts of this country cry over 6000 soldiers in how many years when we lost 30,000 in 1 day...everyone is driving from the back seat and I hope it stops.  History happens...some proud, some sad but to sit back after a country not a president makes a decision and when things get ugly say .....well......of course I wouldnt have done it that way..   Please people it is like sending a guy in to tie the game by kicking a field goal and when he misses the wanna be coach mumbles I would have gone for it on 4th down....STOP THE BLAME ....hate to tell some of you that wars will never cease and you dont want to be the country back onj your heals...

Dear Stephen,

I am at a loss for words after reading your letter, but it confirmed that I was right, so many years ago, when I brought my american- born daughter back to Italy to be educated.

Gemma aghast

you must be the typical mega-liberal you think you just made a comment but where is it??  why dont you just beat down my post point by point then you might make sense.

Cheers

Don't try me. I might tell you, point by point, what is wrong with your letter.

Still aghast Gemma

I am at a loss for words that this country could put Obama in control of this great country.  I am no racist and I vote for the best man regardless of party.  Frankly Obama doesntdoesn’t have nearly enough experience to be a commander and chief and I have listened to his many speeches as of late(?) and he never talks about solutions. And yes I have to admit  his church affiliation is valid and truly scary(?).  This countriescountry’s problems  are far deeper than George Bush.  Are(our?) house of cards(?) has gotten a little taller every 10 years’ cycle since 1960.  We are all to blame from the lowest class to the sky(?).  DoesntDoesn’t anyone realize that are(our?)moment of prosperity with Clinton was almost solely based on a .com blast from insanity?? Did people forget that around 350 operatives which took decades to get inside are(our?) middle eastern friends’ back door were compromised before Bush took office and most of whom(?) were taken off the map within days.  Then 9/11.....whoswhose fault was it fault??  And what has happened here since that tragic day??   And the bleeding hearts of this country cry over 6000 soldiers in howas many years when we lost 30,000 in 1 day(when and where?)...everyone is driving from the back seat and I hope it stops.  History happens...some proud, some sad but to sit back after a country not a president makes a decision and when things get ugly say(?) .....well......of course I wouldnwouldn’t have done it that way..   Please, people, it is like sending a guy in to tie the game by kicking a field goal and when he misses the wanna be coach mumbles I would have gone for it on 4th down....STOP THE BLAME ....hate to tell some of you that wars will never cease and you dontdon’t want to be the country back onj(?) your healsheels(?)...

These are my daughter's corrections and perplexities. The question marks mean that she has not understood the sentence.

Gemma

yep you nailed it ....  I just turned 40, I own my own business and employ 23.  I made $392K last year. I drive a 1993 Camry.  My 2 sons and I are best friends.  And wait.........you still didnt do anything but bash me.  Liberal = Bash accordingly  but offer no solution.....

Need a job??

PS  I graduated high school with a 1.8  and  no one cares.

Seriously are you looking because I am hiring??

Actually I figured out the linguist thingy after I first posted sorry to ruin your mojo.  Just honestly scared for the future of our country and my sons.

Sorry got to run to the store now need some Budweiser and porkrinds.

u r sofa king we todd did!!

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on September 6, 2008 12:14 PM we do tend to be hyper-sensitive to clear writing and spelling since that's what we have to do all the time, 24/7, every day of the year.

The G.O.P. gentleman is saying that that's precisely why you are not and never will be making $392K a year while driving a 1993 Camry, Maxi (which, I am sure, is your dream). You seem to have missed his point.

I gotta run to get some Brunello di Montalcino for my lunch before they close the store.

Jacek (who has no clue what a 1993 Camry looks like cos he would only drive a Lexus)

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on September 6, 2008 5:59 AM Gemma, I think you should put quotation marks or a full quote feature in your post.  For a moment I thought the writing was your own, and was truly perplexed.

You are right, Maxi, except that my daughter would do it herself while I was away and I missed the chance. Anyway, I guess Jane Austen would say that I have too much sensibility and not enough sense, to think of dialoguing with somebody whose only standard of eccellence is how much money he earns and not how bad his spelling is. Remember the sentence by B. Franklin? It has happened and safety rather than liberty is the republicans' goal. Except that they are not getting it. As long as the sentence: "My country may she always be right, but my country right or wrong" is seen as anything but an abomination, the americans will continue to make wrong choices in their politicians. I wouldn't usually give a damn, except we are all damaged in their decisions.

Or 'she' and 'her' spelling. Don't forget the Post #141323 entrepreneurial ladies who can easily knock down the $392K a year without having to drive a 1993 Camry...

Jacek

Actually everyone to clear it up,  I was the one being typed. Your amusement with my writing skills seemed to reflect on my overall ability to think.  My point was that even with my lack of education, my life is full of success, from money, to my children. The fact that my business gives back by employing individuals in my community, is just an example.  My Camry runs great, and I enjoy holding a bigger and better Xmas party at years end instead of wearing some new Revo's cruising my 911. 

In Reality, it may be time to look at yourself in the mirror.  You continue to bash, even me, instead of changing my mind with mindful facts.

I guess since George Bush cant speak well then......I mean "ALL" the politicians voted to invade. 

One more fact for you;

The United Nations was and is the root.  When you tell your child not to eat all the cookies 12 times and continue to give him or her a pass what happens??  GW told Sadaam let us in or we take action.  Unfortunately for George he just enough time to get any WMD's into Syria.>>fact<<  Well at least George makes a good parent.  To many times in the cookie jar.

Who am I now....  or are you ready??

Something very common here at TC.

Should Stephen have agreed with the point of view of the majority, not one single word would have been uttered about his writing abilities or lack thereof. Had Stephen been of the same opinion as the person who preferred to "correct" his English, Stephen's good or bad English would have been completely overlooked. [Or maybe Stephen came across a bit too harsh and hurt others' feelings?]

As far as politics is concerned, I have ceased to view things in black and white as I did when I was a young girl. Over the years, and having been myself one of those who believe their party is the one that holds the truth, I realized, not without sadness, there's no such thing. There are good and bad individuals (and ideas) in every party, whether liberal or conservative and all of them, to some extent, are both right and wrong.  

Bertha  

Stephen, there is sensitivity to writing skills because this is is a forum of linguists who make their living through writing skills.  Were you to write into a forum of people involved in the automotive industry and confused Volkswagens with Corvettes you might run into a similar reaction. I have explained to you why you had the reaction that you did, since you did not seem to know the nature of this forum.

I'm afraid that I cannot speak to the question since it's a domestic concern.  I'm afraid that I have not followed the political parties closely in the US, France, China or any country other than my own, and even here I am not overly in love with politics.

Best of luck in your elections down there.

Maxi

I still disagree with whoever turned this discussion into a proofreading assignment.

Stephen did not come here to be proofread or to get good or bad grades in English. He came here to express an opinion and everyone here,-- never mind how *delicate* their language "expertise",(or lack thereof)-- should stick to the discussion. Everything else is nothing but a lame excuse.

Bertha

You are wrong Bertha. Had Stephen thought exactly like me, I would have reacted just like I did. You see, I have been teaching English for 30 years. I know how difficult it is to learn a foreign language. When somebody, with all the advantages of not having being born in the slums, and

Stephen was not born in the slums, with the advantage, if not of wealth, at least of a normal income, does not bother to learn his language, his birthright, does not pick up a book to read it, to improve himself, when we see here, in these fora, people that are NOT native speakers, writing an eccellent English, well, I have zero tolerance for people like that.

The language of Shakespeare, the language of Walt Whitman, does not deserve to be treated like that. And, frankly, if I had wanted to answer his argumentations I couldn't have, because most of what he said was incomprehensible, hence the question marks. I thought him a translator, that is the reason why I was hard on him. If he did not know his mother tongue, how could he know a foreign language? He is not a translator? Still, he should know his language. Like the Americans in war, I take no prisoners.

I do not like correcting other people's mistakes  but, since you insist,  go ahead and correct, at least, that *eccellent* of yours.

Bertha

From what I gather that in order to be granted the privilege to talk to you and be able to discuss politics with you, Stephen or anyone for that matter, should write in 100% perfect English. Strange indeed, for your English is not 100% perfect. In fact, very few people write in a 100% perfect English.

Bertha

This morning's digression is unfortunate.  Language use is important for the sake of being understood, and in that respect the post in question is problematic.  That should be the main concern.  Perhaps the poster can be invited to take the time to express himself more clearly to enable others to respond to his ideas?

In the meantime may I invite everyone to go back on topic, which I believe deals with the upcoming elections in the U.S.

Maxi

How odd, normally people living in the US are not that confrontational.

Jacek

Before we all try to go back on topic, (will we ever?) here are my comments on Gemma Monco Waters’ attempt to proofread Stephen’s post by adding question marks to whatever she found incomprehensible.

Originally written by Gemma Monco Waters on September 6, 2008 2:50 PM I am at a loss for words that this country could put Obama in control of this great country.  I am no racist and I vote for the best man regardless of party.  Frankly Obama doesntdoesn’t have nearly enough experience to be a commander and chief and I have listened to his many speeches as of late (?)

Why a question mark here? What is so difficult about the meaning of "as of late"?

And yes I have to admit his church affiliation is valid and truly scary (?).

Though not as brilliantly expressed as expected, I don't understand why anyone should have difficulty understanding the meaning of this phrase.

This countriescountry’s problems  are far deeper than George Bush.  Are (our?) house of cards (?) has gotten a little taller every 10 years’ cycle since 1960.

Does an experienced translator need help to realize that *are* was intended to be *our*? The meaning of “house of cards” should lead to no confusion at all.

We are all to blame from the lowest class to the sky (?).

Another unnecessary question mark. This here means "everyone, all of us, from the poorest to the richest".

DoesntDoesn’t anyone realize that are (our?) moment of prosperity with Clinton was almost solely based on a .com blast from insanity?? Did people forget that around 350 operatives which took decades to get inside are (our?)

Same unnecessary corrections over and over. 

everyone is driving from the back seat and I hope it stops.  History happens...some proud, some sad but to sit back after a country not a president makes a decision and when things get ugly say (?) .....well......of course I wouldnwouldn’t have done it that way..

The self-appointed proofreader should have placed the question mark much earlier in this sentence. Obviously there is no mistake in “say”.

Please, people, it is like sending a guy in to tie the game by kicking a field goal and when he misses the wanna be coach mumbles I would have gone for it on 4th down....STOP THE BLAME ....hate to tell some of you that wars will never cease and you dontdon’t want to be the country back onj (?) your healsheels(?)...

Why a question marks? The writer meant: *the country back on your heels*. Translators should be able to realize this, or shouldn’t they?

These are my daughter's corrections and perplexities. The question marks mean that she has not understood the sentence. Gemma

What perplexes me is how anyone can go the extra mile to bash and put down a total stranger at the time they completely overlook what is being said and fail to stay on topic.

Bertha

Before we all try to go back on topic ....

Let's get back on topic! 

Topic title: "United States Presidential Election, 2008"

Maxi

Back to the topic and rephrasing the question marks: What are McCain's credentials in this respect (other than his successes in Vietnam, of course)?

And yes I have to admit his church affiliation is valid and truly scary (?).

Equally scary is McCain's affiliation (Post #142221) and his veep's affiliation (Post #155101). Does that make him a better candidate?

Are (our?) house of cards (?) has gotten a little taller every 10 years’ cycle since 1960.

This may be frightening. That's 28 years of Republican governments and 20 Democratic:

John F. Kennedy	January 20, 1961	November 22, 1963[4]
Lyndon B. Johnson	November 22, 1963	January 20, 1969
Richard Nixon	January 20, 1969	August 9, 1974[2]
Gerald Ford	August 9, 1974	January 20, 1977
Jimmy Carter	January 20, 1977	January 20, 1981
Ronald Reagan	January 20, 1981	January 20, 1989
George H. W. Bush	January 20, 1989	January 20, 1993
Bill Clinton	January 20, 1993	January 20, 2001
George W. Bush	January 20, 2001	Incumbent (Term expires January 20, 2009)

We are all to blame from the lowest class to the sky (?).

How so all of us?

Did people forget that around 350 operatives which took decades to get inside are (our?)

Can you refresh my memory as to what operatives we are talking about?

everyone is driving from the back seat and I hope it stops.  History happens...some proud, some sad but to sit back after a country not a president makes a decision and when things get ugly say (?) .....well......of course I wouldnwouldn’t have done it that way..

How do you drive from the front seat?

you dontdon’t want to be the country back onj (?) your healsheels(?)...

Did the writer mean "You don't want the country to set you back on your heels," i.e., to unpleasantly surprise you?  Or "You don't want to set the country back on its heels"?

What perplexes me is how anyone can go the extra mile to bash and put down a total stranger at the time they completely overlook what is being said

Wrong usage of "overlook." The verb in question was, as was explained from the start, "to understand."

The final question, overlooked above, was:

And the bleeding hearts of this country cry over 6000 soldiers in howas many years when we lost 30,000 in 1 day(when and where?)

Jacek (finally on topic)

Thank you, Jacek, for bringing it back on topic.  Since I'm not a political creature I can't really participate here.  I do think I have unravelled the mystery of the 30,000, though.  A google of 9/11 + 30,000 reveals that at least one of the planes was traveling at 30,000 feet, and there was an estimate that if half the people working at the WTC had been killed that day, 30,000 people would have been killed.  However, the numbers were much lower than that.  I wonder if this is the 30,000 being referred to.

Maxi

Thanks for the defense.  I hope we can somehow come together as a stonger country and stop the painful division.  I will vote McCain.  I hope all is well in your parts of the world.

Stephen

Glad to see you back, Stephen, in spite of all the bashing you've been through.

Even though I am in Arizona, I am not voting for McCain. In fact, I will not vote for anyone. However, on his Thursday acceptance speech, McCain put the stress on being american first and foremost, and that's something I wholeheartedly agree on though maybe it's just one more convenient slogan added to the list of slogans we are hearing these days from both strongest candidates.

I just hope one day the people in this country I have come to love so much will quit talking liberal or conservative and will understand nobody is ever completely right or completely wrong.

Bertha

Originally written by David Kallans on September 7, 2008 4:45 AM   I think you got it right at the end:  it is just a slogan.  No one who puts his country first would name someone as woefully unqualified as Sara Palin to be president during a time of national crisis (i.e. should the aged McCain die in office).  That was politics placed before country, plain and simple.

Yup. I think that's what it is, a slogan. However, one day we (not they) might understand that they all have their slogans and they all try to talk us into trusting them and their tricks.

Obama's "change" thing also sounds pretty much the same. Another slogan.

Bertha

Only those who choose not to inform themselves on the various and serious issues the United States faces, as of today, would allow themselves to be bamboozled by any slogans (esp. the "change" that both McCain and Obama are espousing, at this point). After all, no matter who gets the job in end, he will only have relative power, tempered by circumstances and checks and balances between the branches of government.

Idealism is a good concept, in theory, and is something we should all strive for in the attempt to improve ourselves as people and as a country. But pragmatic action is all that will actually change any of the problems the United States faces before everything gets more out of hand than it has, as a result of what I perceive to be the selfish, personal agendas of George W. Bush, many of which McCain seems inclined to carry on with.

Not all change is good-some of it can take us many steps backward, which I believe it will if McCain gets into office (look at his stands on women's reproductive rights).

I have never been the conservative type myself, quite the opposite. However, this serious issue, the one so many call "women's reproductive rights" is precisely one of the issues I strongly disagree with with liberals. [And, mind you, I follow no religion].

Though I have already made up my mind not to vote next November, my opposition to abortion is one of the very few reasons why I might have felt inclined to vote for McCain.

Bertha

(look at [McCain's] stand on women's reproductive rights).

I fully respect Sarah Palin's decision to carry her baby to term, despite the Down syndrome. The fact is, according to Post #155090, that such decision is made by only 10 percent of US women who receive a similar prenatal diagnosis. For the government to decree what 100% of citizens have or do not have to do is very un-American. But I understand that this is becoming a norm in the United States, perfectly accepted by the populace. Benjamin Franklin, when asked "Well doctor, what have we got? A monarchy or a republic?," replied "A republic if you can keep it."

Jacek

Absolutely. For me one good thing about Mc Cain was his support for the immigration reform which would include legalization of existing illegals (semi-amnesty). I am saying "was" because that's precisely what caused McCain's campaign to implode some time ago and we don't need to look as far as http://www.slate.com/id/2199042/ to find evidence of that. Of course, the same voters who deserted McCain on immigration by definition cannot vote for an Afro-American. I particularly like the line "I am not a racist but..." in this respect. On another ethnic note, I also found interesting that line about small but meaningful number of older Jews who either won't vote for a black man or have come to believe the emails about Obama being a secret Muslim. So, certain choices are pre-determined. Even if Obama were obviously the best candidate, many people would vote against him, or abstain from voting, because they are programmed to not being able to swallow his name. For me this is one of the most fascinating aspects of this campaign, like never before. Of course the other one is the perception of women candidates vs. men.

Jacek

I haven’t decided yet whether I will vote this year, and yes, I realize that by not voting I can't complain should I disagree with whoever is elected. If one can get past the hype, which is not an easy task considering we are bombarded daily with slogans and counter slogans, both candidates and their running mates have good qualities and bad qualities. For me the question is which candidate has the best chance of bringing positive economic and social change. And, regardless of which candidate is elected I think it will take more than four years to overcome the current state of our economic health (or lack thereof) and social standing.

9/11 was (and still is) a shock to the American conscious, for which we blame most, if not all of our (U.S.) problems. The issues imho were not caused by 9/11, but was the result of Pandora’s Box being opened when we had been successful in keeping it closed for so long. We have seen the implosion of large, greedy corporations, gas prices at unprecedented highs, runs on banks, skyrocketing unemployment, -basically we are in deep doo-doo, and it is going to be an almost impossible challenge for any president-elect to pull us out of this mess. As a child I remember my mom telling me when I thought I knew it all (typical kid), "young man, don't get too big for your britches." This is exactly what I think has happened in a nut-shell. The U.S., as great as I think it is, got too big for its britches and is going through an extremely painful restructuring process.

To sum this up, imho, we (U.S.) are desperate to elect someone, anyone, which can get us out of this mess and let life get back to normal. I am not sure that either candidate is capable of doing what may be impossible. In my humble opinion a complete shift in the way we, as a nation, think and operate will need to happen - and I don't see this happening anytime soon. Of course if our economy continues to go down the toilet we may see change faster than thought. Money, or the lack of, has a funny way of altering opinions.

This is David, and I approve this message.

"Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds" (Washington Times, 7/24/2006); "Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks" (Washington Post, 9/6/2003); "The same poll in June showed that 56% of all Republicans said they thought Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the latest poll that number actually climbs, to 62%" (USA Today/Gallup poll, 10/6/2004); "The latest Harris Poll has some interesting results on public opinions of Saddam Hussein's possible links to al Qaeda. Of those Americans polled, 64% agree that Saddam Hussein had 'strong' links to al Qaeda" (Harris poll, July 21, 2006); "49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution . . . Only a third of Americans understood that much of the rest of the world opposed our invasion [of Iraq]. Another third thought the rest of the world was cheering our invasion, and a third thought the rest of the world was neutral" (Rick Shenkman, June, 2008). http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/06/carney/index.html?source=newsletter

Even if people really don't care, the extent of public opinion manipulation is among the things that should change. Will it under the grand old leadership?

Jacek

It would be much wiser to promote legislation that would oblige parents to teach their children the consequences of irresponsible sex. Teachers might do so at school as well. 

It is not only about the rights of the innocent unborn child; the devastating psychological effects of abortion should also be taken into serious consideration. Unfortunately, there are still too many people of all ages who act like sex was a game.

Bertha

Originally written by D. T. I realize that by not voting I can't complain should I disagree with whoever is elected.

I really don't see how the right to voice an opinion is at all dependent on one's willingness to participate in an election.  A decision not to participate is itself a protected right, and an important part of freedom.  If one views the process as an empty charade, one need not participate in it in order to have the right to criticize it.

I myself typically vote for third party candidates such as Ralph Nader, as I view this as a more effective way to "rage against the machine.  What I find infuriating is my fellow liberals who say that I somehow "should" vote for Democrats, as if they are automatically entitled to my vote no matter what they do.

Isn’t this just part of human nature? We are opinionated, which of course means our opinions can be swayed given the right circumstances i.e., propaganda. Some of us, I admit, are more stubborn than others and it is not as easy to sway our opinions, but....

David

Originally written by D. T. on September 7, 2008 7:35 PM ... both candidates and their running mates have good qualities and bad qualities. For me the question is which candidate has the best chance of bringing positive economic and social change. And, regardless of which candidate is elected I think it will take more than four years to overcome the current state of our economic health (or lack thereof) and social standing.

One thing that still puzzles me about this country is the cost of health care and how individuals with health insurance coverage can still get into deep doo-doo, and even lose their properties, when someone in the family gets sick.

A middle aged woman that works for us at home lost her husband a few years ago. She found her husband lying on the floor one evening when she got home. Her husband was rushed to hospital where he was pronounced DOA. A few weeks after her husband's death she received a hospital bill for over $5,000. 

This does not happen in my home country, where medicine is socialized. Down there you only pay an average of 25 - 40 dollars per month and that pays for everything no matter how serious the condition or how lengthy or expensive the treatment.

Bertha

Being opinionated, yes. But not searching and responding to new facts? That's not exactly 'human' in my book...

Jacek

Yes, Jacek, that is the problem. We (speaking in general terms here) read, hear one (or a few) supposed facts and run with it like it is gospel, if it fits into our opionion. When it doesn't fit, we seem to search for more facts that will fit. When this doesn't happen, we ....

David

Liberals often tend to tell other people what they need to do. Strange as it may appear, I often find it is easier to have a discussion with a conservative than with a liberal.

Uruguay was run by two conservative parties ever since 1830. Several minority parties came together (socialists, communists, independents, catholics, ex guerrilla members, etc) and a new center-left party was born. They came into power in  2004 and Uruguay got its first socialist president. Some good things have been done in these last four years but also some others the people certainly would have never expected from their new government. The least expected was a new *income tax*, that they pulled right out of the hat, on salaries... and pensions.

Bertha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center), so unless one is an insider, it's really tough to figure out whom to believe. Very often, though, the news is not contradictory and no one disputes it, yet we continue ignoring it. Amazing.

Jacek

Originally written by Barbara Cochran on September 7, 2008 8:35 PM The problem with socialized medicine is that there are many "professional patients," i.e., people who abuse the system, such as has been the case in England. One day, "the system" will not be there for them or people that have valid medical complaints and needs because of this abuse.

That is true. But it is also true that the system may find *ways* to prevent this from happening. There are several efficient ways to stop these abusers.

Several years ago, the 12 year old daughter of a friend of mine was diagnosed with severe liver failure and her parents were told the girl had a few weeks to live. At the time there were no chances to get a compatible liver in Uruguay so the girl had to be flown to the neighbouring Buenos Aires (Argentina) where a young boy had just died in an accident. The transplant was a success, the parents were also transferred by plane to Buenos Aires, the girl stayed in hospital for over a month and later on continued treatment back in Uruguay. She had to go through regular check-ups for the next two years. How much would this have cost here in the US? In Uruguay my friends paid nothing. Zero. Their 30 or 40 dollar monthly payment covered it all.  

Bertha

Originally written by Barbara Cochran on September 7, 2008 5:35 PM The problem with socialized medicine is that there are many "professional patients," i.e., people who abuse the system, such as has been the case in England.

Barbara,

Out of curiosity, do you have any first-hand experience in that respect? Although I really shouldn't be asking because even if you do, Michael Moore (Post #117670) has already countered it in his movie. Have you seen it?

This topic, where laymen like ourselves can only talk about a society's principles and not come up with economic solutions, is one of those topics that lend themselves to huge manipulation and sways of opinions, e.g.:

The issue of health care in the 2008 U.S. presidential election has caused a resurgence in use of the term by Republicans. For example, in a July 2007 campaign speech, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani made a direct connection between socialized medicine and socialism. Giuliani also quoted statistics from his health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist David Gratzer, to support his claim that he had a better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the U.S. than he would have had in England. According to cancer experts cited in fact check articles by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, the St. Petersburg Times and its PolitiFact.com, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Times, Giuliani's statistics were "false" and very "misleading" and his conclusions were complete "nonsense".

In response, Canadian psychiatrist and Giuliani health care advisor David Gratzer said: "The mayor is right."...

Annenberg's FactCheck.org found no merit in Gratzer's response:... Nor did The Washington Post, which awarded Giuliani and Gratzer's response the same "Four Pinocchios" rating (reserved for "whoppers") it awarded Giuliani and Gratzer's original claim. ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine}

^{Etc. etc.}

One of my aunts is from England and is in almost daily contact with other relatives who are still there, and they have told her that their socialized medical system is in shambles because too many people try to take advantage of it when it isn't really necessary for them to do so. There is a waitng list for services and it often takes months for those with real and serious complaints to get treatment. I worked here in the United States as a paraprofessional in the mental health field, for many years and  I found that many of the consumers (who have free medical insurance) lives revolved around how much medical attention, of any type, that they could garner.

I see the latter as a comment of how ineffective mental health treatment and the public insurance system (Medicare and Medicaid) is in the Uniited States. No wonder Medicare will be bankrupt in 10 years.

We should be enabling independence, not dependency, so that when we are aged we will all have the care we need.

In any case, in spite of what you might think, I favor socialized medicine over any other system, because I believe access to health care is a basic human right, and because we'll soon need something to replace the current system in the United States, which is now in decline. 

Don't worry, I did notice a liberal note in your previous posts...

One of my aunts is from England and is in almost daily contact with other relatives who are still there, and they have told her that their socialized medical system is in shambles

I asked for that kind of input because Michael Moore's is a propaganda movie (which my son, dabbing in filmmaking, noticed immediately). I have never used the English NHS so I am not in a position to dispute either Moore's positive or your family's negative opinion about it. It is a fact, though, that people from every country tend to complain about the arrangements they have. For example, in its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "best overall health care" in the world, followed by Italy (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/). Knowing Italians, I can assure you that they would disagree, despite my constant praise of their system on TC in comparison to Poland.

In 2000, the WHO ranked the UK 18th and the United States 37th (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html), yet eight years later,

A recent survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) .... finds that Americans are generally split on the issue of whether the United States has the best health care system in the world (45% believe the U.S. has the best system; 39% believe other countries have better systems; 15% don't know or refused to answer) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/republicans-democrats-disagree-us-health-care-system.html

So, those who are ranked the best complain while the majority from the country which is way down the list are happy. It all depends who you listen to...

Jacek

And let's not let all those greedy doctors off the hook, either! They are becoming increasingly out of control with what they charge our insurance, and with all of the unnecessary diagnostic testing they put their patients through. They seem awfully "test happy" to me, anymore.

Just last month, one of my doctors told me that she thought it was a good idea for me to get another bone density test. I thought to myself, "Whatever for? You just told me less than 2 years ago, when I had it done for the first time, that you had never seen 'bones in a person of (my) age in such good condition.'" Accordingly, I am going to pass on it for the next several years.

Since I consume a lot of dairy products, take 1,200 mg of calcium supplement daily, and she just told me the above less than 2 years ago, why should I burden and drain my insurance with that? I'd rather use it when I actually will need it.

But, at this rate (the greed of professional patients and doctors), it probably won't be there when I will really need it! That is why something needs to be done to make at least a re-haul of the current system.

An aunt of my husband's was in pretty good shape and feeling wonderfully well, but her doctor insisted that she needed a stent. She had an excellent insurance and, of course, the greedy doctor knew.  She spent no less than 18 days in hospital. The worse she got, the more exams and surgeries they suggested for her. In other words, the wor$se she got, the more money the medical "indu$try" made. My husband told me with tears in his eyes that, judging by the endless parade of patients being taken in and out of surgery, that  hospital looked much more like a factory. The patient ended up dead. Only eighteen days earlier, she felt and was in good shape and we all believe no stent was needed. We still cry when we remember about it. I was and still am furious. I even got to suggest her sons to file a lawsuit but they were so distressed they preferred to leave it all there.

A friend of ours was told by her "dear doctor" that she had breast cancer and her breast had to be immediately removed. She is a very intuitive woman and somehow could not completely trust the doc's words. She saw another doctor, she went for another test and she had n o t h i n g. Had she trusted the first crook, she would have lost one breast and she would have to go through a lot of pain and suffering.

Personally, I have stayed away from traditional medicine for no less than 12 years and would only see a traditional doctor or enter a traditional hospital if, for example, I was run over by a train and needed one of my arms or legs put back into place. Otherwise, they may come after my insurance (my husband's, that is) as much as they want. I will run faster than the same roadrunner.

Bertha

I don't know what Scott would say about this, but this is what I just came across on AOL.

Bertha

_______

McCain Moves Ahead of Obama in Poll

By DAVID PAUL KUHN

Politico.com

posted: 5 MINUTES AGO

comments: 57

filed under: Election News, Barack Obama, John McCain

(Sept. 7) - John McCain has overtaken Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll and has his highest level of support in that poll since early May.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-moves-ahead-of-obama-in-poll/163776?icid=200100397x1208712846x1200510465

Oops! I said I didn't know what Scott would say, but here it is:

____________

Bertha

I think this is exactly why most people keep voting. We all need that "hope", a hope that would most likely vanish if we took a moment to analize all the BS coming out of the candidates' mouths. Even the most honorable, truthful candidates have a compelling need to jazz it all up in order to get the much needed votes. Whenever they find themselves in front of a camera or a mike they themselves can no longer tell the difference between their true beliefs and sheer demagogy.

I have many times wondered what would happen (and I mean most countries, not only the US) if most people just refused to vote and the candidates got, say, barely 10% of the people voting for them. Would that tell them something? I wonder.

Bertha

In 2004, less than one quarter of Americans voted for George W. Bush; he received approximately 62 million votes in a country with 293 million people.  Looked at another way, more than three quarters of Americans did not vote for him.

No, because when this eventually happens, everybody will be used to the following trend:

Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies.This trend has been most strongly felt in the United States, and has been significant in Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. During this same period, other forms of political participation have also declined, such as voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of observers at town meetings. The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations.  ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout}

Scare them and shackle them in debt and they will all shut up...

Here is detailed data on Turnout in the world - country by country performance: http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm (in some countries, voting is compulsory)

Jacek

Yes, but 64% of Americans voted in 2004, which means more than half of the people still "want to believe" and are, thus, ready to allow polititians to say and do as they please. 

Bertha

Actually, far less than half of Americans voted in 2004.  62 million voted for Bush, 59 million for John Kerry, and a negligible number for other candidates.  That is 121 million voters in a country of an estimated 293 million, which is around 41%.

Originally written by Dorothea Lotter I'm not sure I understand the logic of this. In a democracy, by not voting you automatically support the party/politicians that end(s) up getting the most votes (or, rather, getting the most votes counted). It doesn't matter how many people vote, as long as you have a democratic system in place.

It is actually a logical fallacy to posit that one supports the winner if one does not vote.  There are many reasons why people choose not to vote:  inconvenience, ineligibility, and apathy to name but a few.  You also raise the issue that votes may not necessarily be counted (see, e.g. the 2000 election).  If elections are stolen, it is particularly understandable for people to refuse to participate in the charade.

I can understand why people (mostly Democrats) get discouraged about casting their vote when things happen like they did in 2000 when then Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush (George W.'s little brother), took advantage of the "hanging chads" issue and awarded Florida to his brother. Because of the way this whole snafu was handled, and the way the vote had been going up to that point, I feel that Gore should have, by all rights, won Florida and the election.

Too many of us felt the same. I surely would have liked to have Gore in the White House. I like the man.

Bertha  

Originally written by Dorothea Lotter on September 10, 2008 1:49 AM I don't see a fallacy here; by saying that non-voters automatically "support" the winning ticket I don't mean to imply that this (supporting the candidate) is the reason why they don't vote. I'm only saying that, whether they like it or not, it will inevitably be the result in a democratic system. By "support" I mean "helping to win". Dorothea

I heard more or less these same words being said about those who supported and voted for minority parties. This was in my home country, not here. But one day, alas!, it happened that the said "minority" party came into power and that's what they are at right now: governing a country where they were previously thought not to stand a chance.

I happened to vote for this party and let me assure you that being frowned upon because of it was extremely annoying.

Bertha

The subtext of Dorothea's message was that one is obligated to vote for one of the two major parties, otherwise one is "helping" the other.  At the root of this view is a sense of entitlement, that people are obligated to vote for Democrats or Republicans no matter what they do or who they nominate.  I categorically reject this claim, and maintain that one can vote for third parties or not vote at all, as one chooses.  The two-party view reached an annoying peak in 2000 when it was said that voting for Ralph Nader was the same as voting for George Bush, and that if you wanted to vote against George Bush, you had to vote for Al Gore.  Wrong.  I wanted to vote against both of them, and did.  I did not want to vote for Bush, and was not obligated to acquiese to Gore as a result.  Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore votes, only Al Gore cost Al Gore votes.

Originally written by Dorothea Lotter on September 10, 2008 What I find more important is that whatever actions people take they should carefully think through the consequences.

With this I am in complete agreement.  As a progressive liberal, I vote against Democrats because if I vote for them despite their generally anti-progressive policies (as I see it), then I only encourage them to continue in this direction.

In part, this is why "change" takes so long or never happens.

Bertha

Originally written by Barbara Cochran on September 10, 2008 6:24 AM ... stating, over a period of years, that there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, where many have died horrible deaths because of that untruth.

War which, according to Gov. Sarah Palin, is *God's war*.

I watched both conventions from beginning to end. When I heard Sarah Palin say this, I got goosebumps.

Bertha

Apparently, even God is perplexed.

http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/po/

Originally written by Barbara Cochran on September 10, 2008 4:46 PM "God's War?" That sounds like the same kind of Holy War fundamentalist gibberish that terrorists like Osama Bin Laden use in a feeble attempt to justify the mass murders he and his followers have carried out against the innocent.

You can put lipstick on a self-righteous religiously crazed war-mongerer, but it is still just a self-righteous religiously crazed war-mongerer.

http://www.utne.com/Politics/2008-09-08/Obama-the-Organizer.aspx?blogid=30&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

"After lavishing praise on John McCain for his military service, Republicans took the opportunity to ridicule Barack Obama’s work as a community organizer on day three of the GOP convention.

Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, and Sarah Palin all took turns kicking dirt on Obama’s early days on Chicago’s South Side. Pataki said, “What in God’s name is a community organizer? I don’t even know if that’s a job.” Giuliani chimed in, “He worked as a community organizer. What? Maybe this is the first problem on the resume.” And Palin drove home the point, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, expect that you have actual responsibilities.”

These were sharp jabs at Obama meant to stoke doubt about his readiness to be president. But the comments left any details about what Obama actually did as an organizer to the imagination. So what in God’s name did Obama do on the South Side and does it matter?

Writing for the New Republic, John B. Judis argues that the important thing to understand about Obama’s time as an organizer is not what he did, but why he quit. Judis describes Obama as “a disillusioned activist who fashioned his political identity not as an extension of community organizing but as a wholesale rejection of it.” His essay details how Obama’s organizing work led him to believe politics, not organizing, was his best opportunity to produce broad-based change. An article published last year by the Nation and another at the New Republic also take stabs at fleshing out Obama’s organizing days.

In response to the convention speeches, the Nation quotes Obama as saying, “I would argue that doing work in the community to try and create jobs, to bring people together, to rejuvenate communities that have fallen on hard times, to set up job-training programs in areas that have been hard hit when the steel plants closed, that that's relevant only in understanding where I'm coming from, who I believe in, who I'm fighting for and why I'm in this race.”

Weigh in: How is Obama's community organizing experience relevant in this election?"

Palin's Husband Won't Testify in Probe

By MATT VOLZ

,

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Sept. 18) - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and key lawmakers said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-husband-wont-testify-in-probe/176730?icid=200100397x1209971726x1200583867

Mr Palin's refusal to appear in Court also threw me off.

But I checked on Wikipedia and got my confirmation:

Bertha

_________

From Wikipedia:

There are two common types of subpoenas:

A subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment.

A subpoena duces tecum orders a person to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

Originally written by Harry Bornemann In the meantime I read this article too, and now I think Mr. Palin will or should be "held in civil contempt", but I have no idea what this means (the literal translation does not help much ).

Being held in civil contempt means a judge orders you to do something and you refuse to do it, and as a result the judge orders that you be sent to jail, or fined, until you agree to comply (or until the judge thinks you've had enough).  For this to happen there has to be a court hearing, at which time the legitimacy of the subpoena can be attacked (and in this case the defense would challenge this on various grounds, including executive privilege and the spousal privilege).

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on September 19, 2008 11:18 PM   I read this article too, and now I think Mr. Palin will or should be "held in civil contempt", but I have no idea what this means (the literal translation does not help much ).

I think it all comes down to one thing: if your spouse is a governor plus a candidate for VP, then ...hmmm...the consequences may be quite different and we might also need to use another dictionary.

[I also wonder what the Reps would be saying today had it been Michelle Obama the one refusing to appear in Court. She would be burning in Hell already. ]

Bertha

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on September 19, 2008 11:18 PM I read this article too, and now I think Mr. Palin will or should be "held in civil contempt", but I have no idea what this means (the literal translation does not help much ).

From Wikipedia:

Contempt of court is a court ruling which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, deems an individual as having been disrespectful of the court, its process, and its invested powers. Often stated simply as "in contempt", or a person "held in contempt", it is the highest remedy of a judge to impose sanctions on an individual for acts which excessively or in a wanton manner disrupt the normal process of a court hearing.

A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.

In civil cases involving relations between private citizens, the intended victim of the act of contempt is usually the party for whose benefit the ruling was implemented, rather than the court itself.

A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt. These are

• existence of a lawful order
• the contemnor's knowledge of the order
• the contemnor's ability to comply
• the contemnor's failure to comply.

You are right on both counts.  Despite lofty rhetoric of all people being equal before the law, there is a different set of rules for the powerful and well-connected.  And yes, if this was Obama's spouse, then holy hell would be raining down on them (just like it would if Obama, a black man, had an unmarried pregnant daughter).  The double standards are many.

In case you guys didn't get the time to read the article, just take a peek at this:

Bertha

_________________________________________

Ignoring a legislative subpoena is punishable by a fine up to $500 and up to six months in jail under Alaska law. But courts are reluctant to intervene in legislative matters and the full Legislature must be in session to bring contempt charges, Wielechowski said. The Legislature is not scheduled to convene until January.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-husband-wont-testify-in-probe/176730?icid=200100397x1209971726x1200583867

Thanks David and Bertha, I think being held in civil contempt corresponds exactly to German StPO § 70 Abs. 2 "Erzwingungshaft".

From AOL

Is Obama's race a reason you will vote for or against him?

Total Votes: 20,838

Note on Poll Results

How big of a role will race play in the presidential election?

Total Votes: 20,311

Note on Poll Results

http://news.aol.com/article/racial-views-may-cost-obama-election/181935?icid=200100397x1210125563x1200562252

Economy Gives Obama Clear Edge in Poll

AOL

(Sept. 24) - Recent economic woes have given Democrat Barack Obama a clear lead over Republican John McCain, a new poll shows. The Washington Post/ABC News national poll finds Obama leading McCain by 9 points, 52 to 43 percent, among likely voters.

Palin Interviews Spark GOP Concerns

AP

WASHINGTON (Sept. 27) - A conservative columnist who welcomed Sarah Palin's entry in national politics says she's proven to be a dud and should step aside as John McCain's running mate.

................................................

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palin-interviews-spark-gop-concerns/192226?icid=200100397x1210548868x1200628120

AOL News

House Fails to Pass Huge Bailout Deal

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

,

AP

WASHINGTON (Sept. 29) - The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue package, ignoring urgent pleas from President Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders to quickly bail out the staggering financial industry.

http://news.aol.com/article/house-fails-to-pass-huge-bailout-deal/188230?icid=200100397x1210046975x1200587536

Maybe they know they could easily find the money elsewhere...

From The Iraq War as a Financial Sinkhole:

....sometime in 2009 the direct costs of the [Iraq] war the Bush administration once predicted would cost perhaps $50-60 billion in total will stand at more than $800 billion, or $100 billion above the cost (if all goes well, which it won't) of the bailout of the financial system now being proposed in Washington.

Estimates of the true long-term costs of the President's war of choice, including payments of health care and veterans benefits into the distant future, soar into the budgetary stratosphere. They range from the Congressional Budget Office's $1-2 trillion to an estimate by economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes of up to $4-5 trillion. So we're talking somewhere between one-and-a-half and seven bailouts-worth of taxpayer dollars flowing into the morass of disaster, corruption, and carnage in Iraq.

And here's another curious bit of information: Just the other day, the website ThinkProgress pointed out a strange glitch in Iraq planning. The Bush administration, deep into negotiations with the Iraqi government, evidently managed to wheedle an extra year's time for the prospective withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq; its negotiators pushed the date from 2010 -- the year suggested by both Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- to 2011. According to Maliki in an interview with an Iraqi TV station, this change came from the administration's concern over the "domestic situation" in the U.S. (that is, the needs of the McCain campaign*). ...

----

*

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html (via Harper's Weekly Review)

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

“If money isn't loosened up,” said President Bush of the U.S. economy, “this sucker could go down.” http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=3ff7cbc4Q2FIQ60dxISmQ2BQ27ommBQ24IQ24Q2AQ2A4IQ2AQ2FIQ24UIxwQ27pLdQ27Q27IQ24UxQ51p!mwB3,Bg!

Or maybe they know they might as well do nothing and let the market do its thing.

According to some experts this bailout is by no means necessary. (?)

Those in favor of the 700 billion bailout are saying that our bank accounts might be at risk unless something is done. This is not exactly true since most US banks are FDIC insured and all accounts up to $100,000 are safe. Even those with three or four 100,000 different accounts whether in the same bank or in different banks are safe. Why do they insist in playing the boogie man card? Do they want us to feel scared?

Bertha

Originally written by Bertha S. Deffenbaugh on September 30, 2008 4:49 PM Do they want us to feel scared?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Yet ANOTHER Xanax moment

Nanna

Americans have been constantly calling the House to request their representatives not to vote in favor of the bailout. It is said the phone lines are always busy. Well, at least the phones are being answered. Dat's sumthin', ain't it...

Bertha

Originally written by David Kallans on September 30, 2008 5:33 PM Or at least I hope you brought enough to share with everyone!

Yup, we are all in the same boat now. And some of them wonder why on earth is the entire Earth so much interested in the US elections...

One difference is that bank deposits in Poland are not insured up to $100,000 but up to $30,000 of which only 90% can be recovered. The rest is your own problem.

Jacek

Here in the US you can open different accounts even in the same bank. For example, if you have 500,000, all you need is have five different accounts (100,000 each) and that does it. You can have, say, a personal checking account, a personal savings account, and a joint checking with a spouse, etc, etc. Provided they are different types of accounts and none of them goes beyond 100,000 you are OK.

Bertha

This actually is not quite correct and should be clarified lest anyone (who is lucky enough to have so much money at risk) be led astray.  The limit is 100,000 per depositor per bank.  All accounts at the same bank are counted towards the single 100,000 limit, so you can't get around it simply by opening different accounts at the same bank.  You can get around it, however, by opening new accounts at other banks.  Also, accounts are considered to belong to the same depositor only if they are titled exactly the same way.  If Mr. X has an account in his name, that is insured up to 100,000, and if he has a separate joint account in the name of both himself an his wife that account is also insured up to 100,000.  Likewise, accounts that are held in trust are distinct.

In Poland, and I gather in the European Union, the basic rule from your first sentence, when applied to your second sentence means that under a joint account, the limit is double as each of the joint depositors is covered by the full guarantee separately.

Jacek

As I understand the FDIC rules, a joint account in a US bank will be insured up to 100,000 USD per owner (so a husband and wife can together get 200,000 in protection in a joint account, and each could get another 100,000 in protection in their individual names.

The FDIC scheme in US was established in response to the Great Depression of the late 20's and early 30s, but for the rest of the world, the scheme seemed to have started beginning in the 90s with those in Singapore and Malaysia only in recent years (S$20,000/US$14,000 and RM60,000/US$18,000).

I see it as more of assuring the small-time depositors to minimize effects of bank-runs (and adding to the problems) as governments are unlikely not to do anything if banks considered to be national icons are involved, and besides I doubt that the deposit insurance scheme (especially the new ones) can cover all claims simultaneously in the event of a systemic meltdown.

Investment enterprises that cater to the well-to-do may be one thing but when it comes to bank closures of banks of the masses, then I think the situation may be different with calls for official intervention?

Websites too...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/30/congress.website/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

The tidal waves of e-mails and page views began over the weekend after negotiators announced Sunday that a deal had been reached on legislation to enact a $700 billion bailout of the country's financial system.

In making the announcement, legislators said the public could view the agreement at financialservices.house.gov.

"In a short period of time, lots of Web users were rushing to the digital doorway to get a copy of this thing," Ventura told CNN in a phone interview.

As millions of people tried to look at the details of the bailout plan, the House.gov system became overwhelmed and many people saw notices on their computer screens saying "this page does not appear."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/02/sarah.palin.election.language

Sarah Palin's political gibberish

Tonight's vice-presidential debate will challenge Sarah Palin - not just on her knowledge of the issues, but linguistically as well

The main reason she is inadequate is her stunning lack of knowledge about the issues that anyone in her position should know about, most prominently foreign policy. The few news anchors the McCain team has allowed her to speak with - Gibson, Hannity and Couric - could all clearly dance circles around the wannabe Veep when it comes to international politics. But Palin's also alarmingly unskilled when it comes to a more indigenous matter: speaking the English language. Or, as I wouldn't be too surprised to hear her put it, talking American.

The petrified McCain team has, wisely, barely permitted Palin to speak in public. They are so worried about her oratorical ineptitude, in fact, that they successfully negotiated to limit the amount of time she could be interrogated on a single topic during tonight's vice-presidential debate. Now, each candidate will have just 90 seconds to answer a question, followed by a two-minute discussion period.

The few times Palin has spoken at length, with the exception of her heavily rehearsed performance at the Republican national convention, she has revealed both her limited vocabulary and how difficult it is for her to utter complete, complex sentences.

I began to notice the problem during Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson - not coincidentally, her first major unscripted foray into the public speaking realm. When Gibson asked her whether she agreed with the Bush doctrine - and then had to explain to her what it was – she replied: "If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country." Even to the untrained ear that sentence sounds awkward. "Legitimate and enough"? It can't possibly be elitist to suggest that "legitimate and sufficient" would have come off as more literate.

At another point, Gibson asked Palin whether it took hubris for her to jump so quickly and unquestioningly at McCain's offer to run with him. The halting way she answered made me wonder whether she knew what the word hubris actually meant: "I - I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink." Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she does know what hubris is, her sentence barely makes sense. What does it mean that she has "confidence in ... knowing that you can't blink"?

I think I will fix some popcorn and an iced Pepsi for what should be a very entertaining debate. Tonight will rate right up there with the "Comedy Hour".

David

McCain laments selection of Ifill http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081002/pl_politico/14207

IFILL: My name is Gwen Ifill. I am the moderator and managing editor of Washington Week and a senior correspondent for the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. The title of the book is "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." It's taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to cover a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing similar things in different ways.

HANNITY: Your thoughts, Governor, is that a concern at all to you?

PALIN: You know, I'm not going to let it be a concern. Let me just tell you that John McCain has been in an underdog position before, and this ticket, I think it is safe to say, is in an underdog position. But that's what makes us work harder. It makes us want to communicate more clearly and profoundly with the electorate, letting them know what the contrasts are between these two tickets, It's motivating to me, even, to hear Gwen's comments there because, again, it makes us work that much harder, and it provides even more fairness and objectivity and choices for the voters on Nov. 4, if we try that much harder.

Oh, David, this reminds me of a great Mexican comedian, Mario Moreno (Cantinflas). I used to watch his movies when I was little. He would talk endlessly but nobody knew what the hell he was talking about.

Popcorn and Pepsi? This takes me back to year 2002-2003 when I used to work on my translations with a huge bowl of popcorn and a big glass of iced Pepsi. Not any more because I don't want to put on weight, but jeez, was that delicious!

I am going to fix something tasty for today too and I'll be in front of the TV at 6.00 pm sharp. I guess a bunch of frozen blueberries with non-dairy coolwhip topping will be fine.

Bertha

You're lucky and don't know it.

I have to wait till 3AM.

Nanna

Thank you for sparing me waiting, Nanna. Indeed, the debate seems to be at 9 p.m. EST. I was wondering why Bertha said 6 and not 7 p.m. Mountain Time, but from what I see they do not observe Daylight Saving Time (unlike their Navajo people where it is at 7 p.m.)

Jacek

I am in Phoenix, capital of Arizona, also known as the Grand Canyon State and these days also worldwide known as John McCain's state. The debate here is going to be at 6.00 pm, not at 7 pm.

The Navajo Nation is also in Arizona (or should I say most of it) and I didn't know their time was different from the time here in Phoenix. I have been to the Navajo Nation several times and I don't remember having to adjust my watch then. I'm going to check out Window Rock (Navajo Nation's capital) and confirm their time.

Is Nanna timewise closer to the US than Poland? If so, why don't you visit Nanna in Denmark, Jacek, so you can watch the debate one or two hours earlier? Like the idea?

Gotta prepare my blueberries with coolwhip topping for the show.

Bertha

Too late... The evening flight turned out to be full...

Originally written by Stevenson Yu on October 2, 2008 8:58 AM I feel that this may contribute to the thread -- there are studies done on forecasting a winner for this year's elections: http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/PollyVote/index.php/pollyblog/3/92-do-americans-vote-for-the-best-candidate.html

Issues yes, but also biology: http://www.utne.com/2008-09-23/Science-Technology/Vote-Your-Biology.aspx?blogid=36&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

Biology may have a say in who gets your vote this November. A new study published in Science found a correlation between physiological responses to threats and people’s partisan leanings. Test subjects with firm conservative political views displayed stronger physical reactions to unexpected loud noises and threatening images than those with liberal persuasions. While researchers didn't want the study to be interpreted too broadly, Wired reports, "the results suggest that fear leads to political conservatism."

This isn't the first time researchers have tried to crack the political biological code. A 2005 study by Berkeley psychologist Jack Block looked at the personality traits of a group of toddlers and checked back in with them as politically opinionated adults. Block's conclusions were certainly colorful:

…the relatively Liberal young men, when in nursery school two decades earlier, impressed nursery school teachers as boys who were: resourceful and initializing, autonomous, proud of their blossoming accomplishments, confident and self-involving. The relatively Conservative young men, when young boys, were viewed in nursery school as: visibly deviant, feeling unworthy and therefore ready to feel guilty, easily offended, anxious when confronted by uncertainties, distrustful of others, ruminative, and rigidifying when under stress.

A 2003 study by New York University psychologist John Jost reached similar conclusions. According to Seed, “Jost said his study found that an adult displaying heightened needs to manage uncertainty and threat was associated with an attraction to conservative ideas, while openness to new experiences and cognitive complexity correlated with liberal ideas.”

Not surprisingly, the findings of these studies have invited ample criticism. Selwyn Duke, writing for the conservative American Thinker magazine, called the Block study “psycho-babble,” and came to the conclusion that “the social sciences today mainly serve to provide a specious scientific basis for liberalism.”

I'm amazed that the liberal media commentators weren't much more critical of Sara Palin's performance during the vice-presidential debate last night. On more than one occasion she evaded and failed to address the moderator's question head on, opting instead to speak on whatever issue she wanted to (perhaps had more familiarity with?)

Would she be able to deal with all issues directly if she found herself in the position of President? At this point, I would feel very uncomfortable with her holding the reins.

From She Still Knows Nothing:

Palin replied merely by hailing John McCain as a man "who knows how to win a war, who's been there." (McCain has said this about himself as well several times, though, with all due respect for his military record, where's the proof of this claim? What wars has he won, and what did he do there?)

I had the impression that last night’s debate was more about damage control than an actual debate. Barbara, you are right. Whenever Sarah Palin did not want to answer she simply went to a topic, it appeared, that she was more comfortable. It was as if during the preparation she, Palin, memorized set little speeches, generalized in nature, that would appeal to the heartstrings and allow her to avoid any direct answers. She did not, imho, come across as a leader. Overall, though, I don’t think there was any damage done this time as there have been in past interviews.

During the debate I was thinking why McCain chose Palin. Obamah's choice, Biden, was obvious. He, Obamah, needed to shore up his perceived lack of experience. McCain, I think, wanted to go after the women voter and thought Palin would pull in the Hilary votes. Palin is not a Hilary by any stretch of the imagination. Still, there was some other reason for choosing someone so inexperienced. Last night the thought of control came across my mind. McCain, imho, wanted someone that he could keep control over, and what better person than someone that has absolutely no idea what is going on.

David

Originally written by Barbara Cochran on October 3, 2008 1:44 PM I'm amazed that the liberal media commentators weren't much more critical of Sara Palin's performance during the vice-presidential debate last night.

That is probably because there was not a great deal to be critical of! Of course, I am biased somewhat since I fell in love with her at first sight. I had been holding off a bit while keeping that old American admonition in mind: "Before you fall in love with the girl with a light in her eyes, make sure that it isn't just the sun shining through the hole in the back of her head!" Well, last night she showed that she can hold her own against a profi in a public political debate, it is just the talk shows and the breakfast TV shows that she can't quite manage yet. That to me is a virtue, not a vice - it goes with the freshness. 

I watched the show from 3:00 am to 4:30 am CEST plus a half-hour of the various expert opinions on CNN and feel that she has now fully justified McCain's choice. To me she embodies what I have always considered to be the US's greatest strength: Small-town America, and genuinely, too, not the "sincerity is the politician's greatest asset, if you can fake that you have it made" variety so common in Washington DC. She even managed to get in one "doggone it!". I have never once heard a Washington politician come out with a "doggone it!". I didn't even know that anybody said that any more. I can picture her facing down Vladimir Putin while the interpreter was trying to come up with the small-town Russian equivalent of "doggone it!"

On more than one occasion she evaded and failed to address the moderator's question head on, opting instead to speak on whatever issue she wanted to (perhaps had more familiarity with?)

Name me one single US politician who does not do that when it becomes necessary, it is the standard method of avoiding giving a dumb answer. You can't have it both ways. She has been in US national politics for only 5 weeks, just wait until the US presidential election campaign in 2012, then she will have had 4 years to get the hang of it.

Would she be able to deal with all issues directly if she found herself in the position of President? At this point, I would feel very uncomfortable with her holding the reins.

Nobody is expecting John McCain to drop down dead before Christmas and she will have plenty of time to get up to speed before that happens. The other side wants change, just imagine the kind of change a ruthless and determined woman, uncontaminated by Washington, could bring about in US politics! And, God knows, it is needed.

Derek

I don’t think Palin is as uncontaminated as they would like us to think. The trooper scandal doesn’t exactly give images of innocence. Even if she is uncontaminated, after four years of Washington I doubt she would be the same.

David

From my point of view as a literary translator and freelance writer, the way Palin dismissed the head librarian from her post at her town's local library, because she refused to go along with Palin's wish to remove certain books from the shelves, was a blow against the idea of free speech and free access to information. The librarian indicated to Ms. Palin that she was not going to remove the books in question, on the basis of national guidelines for library collections. In other words, she was only doing her job the way she was supposed to be doing it, and for that Ms. Palin fired her, based on her personal preferences alone.  

Exactly what I thought. That's why she kept her eyes wide open while she stared at the camera. She was obviously trying not to forget one single word or comma or her 100% memorized little speeches. It was only when she was done with her memorized "part" that she allowed herself to relax a little bit, grin or smile and look down at her papers.

On a side note, her odd pronounciation of "nuclear" is exactly like that of President Bush's: /nukelar/

Bertha

On another side note: What Kind of Accent Does Sarah Palin Have?

Let's set the record straight here: the Vietnam war was not lost, it was won and it was McCain who won that war. How could you not know that, people? Sheesh!

Bertha

Originally written by Derek Thornton Name me one single US politician who does not do that when it becomes necessary, it is the standard method of avoiding giving a dumb answer. You can't have it both ways.

Many politicians are evasive, but Palin was exceptionally, and transparently, so to a most uncommon degree.  She had no substantive answers to any questions.  All of her answers boiled down to "John McCain is a maverick."  What would you do about the economy?  "John McCain is a maverick."  What would you do about Iraq?  "John McCain is a maverick."  Only the most intellectually deficient viewers would be impressed by her performance, but unfortunately there are many of those.

Not even the simplest questions.

Bertha

________________________

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm

Katie Couric: "And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?"

Sarah Palin: "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media."

Couric: "But, like, what ones specifically? I'm curious."

Palin: "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years."

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too." --

CBS News interview, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

[ airak ]  you mean.!!!

I thought the joke was dead, but I think it reviewd after yesterday's debate.

Watching the debate very late (or early), the scariest part was not her insubstantial answers but her almost unbearably arrogant confidence that she's got the tiger by its tail.

Other than that, she's a nice looking, photogenic woman with a killer smile.

Nanna

Originally written by David Kallans on October 3, 2008 4:44 PM Many politicians are evasive, but Palin was exceptionally, and transparently, so to a most uncommon degree.  She had no substantive answers to any questions.

"NO substantive answers"? So if I can locate a transcript of the discussion, I have to find only one substantive answer to be able to refute your proposition?

OK, I found a transcript ( http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html ), here is a substantive answer right at the start:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IFILL: Now, ... the next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown. Who do you think was at fault? I start with you, Governor Palin. Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?

PALIN: Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house.

There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that.

Again, John McCain and I, that commitment that we have made, and we're going to follow through on that, getting rid of that corruption. One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars.

We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means.

We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this. It's not the American peoples fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of her answers boiled down to "John McCain is a maverick."  What would you do about the economy?  "John McCain is a maverick."  What would you do about Iraq?  "John McCain is a maverick."

We must have been watching two different transmissions. I don't recall that ALL her answers boiled down to that. Check out the transcript and you can see for yourself that it is not so.

Only the most intellectually deficient viewers would be impressed by her performance, but unfortunately there are many of those.

That sounds like a really elitist judgement!

Derek 

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on October 3, 2008 6:41 PM It is easy to find a replacement for Bush, but to find a replacement for the Bushisms, we will need someone like Sarah Palin..

I suspect that the botched interview with Couric was nothing more than a heavy-handed McCain campaign attempt to lower expectations for yesterday's discussions. 

They overdid it. Nobody who watched her on C-Span as she totally dominated the TV discussions before the election for Governer of Alaska could possibly have believed that she could not dominate poor old Joe Biden. She even bewitched him into giving her a pass when she got the name of the Commanding General of US forces in Afghanistan wrong (McLennon instead of McNiell).

Derek  

Derek,

You are right. David's comment is as elitist as it is arrogant.

Usually, the intention behind this manipulative type of comments is either that of making others shut up, feel stupid or inferior. By putting others down, authors of such comments also get the chance to feel "grandiose" themselves. 

As I see it, that type of comments do not even deserve an answer.

Many of us on this thread do not like Sarah Palin, but you will find a bunch of people here who will listen to you with respect. 

Bertha

Yes! Palin used charm: the oldest trick in the world. Charm. It's not hard to do and most men fall for it if you do it right.

Nanna

I am proud to be an elitist.  I believe education and culture matter to things like governing.  I don't think the uneducated should be given the reins of government any more than they should be allowed to perform brain surgery.

It is not intended as a put down when I say that someone might be intellectually deficient.  It is simply an observation of fact.  One can conduct tests and determine that one's blood is deficient in iron; that is not an insult, it is simply a physical fact.  Similarly, being intellectually deficient is a physical fact of many people.  They are still people and I respect them, but I don't think they should have the codes to nuclear weapons.

Only problem being Derek is not going to ask Sarah Palin on a date, is he?

Bertha

To me, he looks neither old nor poor. I found him well informed and very articulate. He seemed way more natural and comfortable than Sarah Palin. Sarah (and I won't say "Poor Sarah) looked and sounded like the ventriloquist's doll.

Bertha

That's pretty close to the mark. Very funny! Wish I had thought of that.

Nanna

And, of course, we all know it is not what you say -but how you say it. Even an iron deficiency can be worded as a put down, if so desired.

David

Originally written by David Kallans on October 3, 2008 4:44 PM All of her answers boiled down to "John McCain is a maverick."  What would you do about the economy?  "John McCain is a maverick."  What would you do about Iraq?  "John McCain is a maverick."

Just for the record, Mrs. Palin used the word "maverick" 6 times during the debate against Biden's 9 times (I just counted them in the transcript).

There is a long essay on McCain's claim to the title of "The Maverick" at: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80724?page=entire "The bizarre tale of how the media turned a crooked Republican into the mirage of a principled politician." and ends with:

"Although it emerged full-blown during the 2000 campaign, the maverick theme has remained a staple of McCain's coverage. Virtually every day -- sometimes many times a day - a reporter or commentator somewhere in the American media is calling John McCain a maverick. Sometimes a reporter almost forgets to mention that McCain is a maverick, then catches him or herself, as NBC's Norah O'Donnell did when guest-hosting Hardball in June 2006. "All right, Senator John McCain -- the maverick McCain," she said, ending their interview. Both laughed knowingly."  

Since that title is his principle claim to fame and has been promoted by his election campaign staff as one of his identifiying features, it should hardly be surprising if Mrs. Palin had been given instructions to insert the term into the debate at every suitable opportunity.

What might be surprising is that Senator Biden let himself be tricked into doing pretty much the same thing but even more often!

Derek

For those of you who want to count 'mavericks'.

Here Post #157337 is a link to an interactive video and transcript (NYT) of the debate between Senator Biden and Governor Palin.

Nanna

Originally written by Bertha S. Deffenbaugh on October 3, 2008 8:35 PM Originally written by Derek Thornton on October 3, 2008 10:35 PM ...poor old Joe Biden.  To me, he looks neither old nor poor. I found him well informed and very articulate.

Ah, Bertha, but "poor old (whatever)" is a common figure of speech in English. It has nothing to do with the "whatever's" fortune nor his age. I guess that the Spanish equivalent is probably "pobre de (alguien/algo)" ("poor old chap" = "¡pobre de él!"; "poor old me!" = ¡pobre de mí!") - it can be used for anybody who you feel sorry for for any reason.

It is really an expression of affection and sympathy in English - I had a premonition that somebody would misunderstand it! In my context, it was meant to convey the impression that I sympathized with him in his agony while he was trying hard to keep his end up without appearing to be bullying a helpless damsel.

I gave up arguing with women many years ago, there was no way I could win. As a last resort, they would burst into tears which made me feel a real swine, so even when I won, I would lose. I gave up playing cards with women at about the same time - if they lost, they would always expect to get their money back and that took all the fun out of the game.

I agree that Joe Biden was well-informed and articulate but that is no help to a man when he is arguing with a woman who is pulling out all the emotional stops.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton Just for the record, Mrs. Palin used the word "maverick" 6 times during the debate against Biden's 9 times (I just counted them in the transcript).

Yes, but Biden was using it ironically, and quite effectively I thought, to point out that McCain has not been a maverick on issues that actually matter to people.  He sided with the Bush administration 90% of the time, and supported the key components of Bush's economic and foreign policies.  Charles Manson was also a maverick.  Being a "maverick" is not an independent qualification for being president.

Don't worry, Derek. I am perfectly aware of the meaning, use and usage of the phrase and I use it myself too. On top of at least one hundred years studying the English language, my husband is american and the only language used at home is English.

I just grabbed your phrase and used it to my advantage in order to get a chance to stand up for Joe Biden.

Bertha

Originally written by David Kallans on October 3, 2008 11:43 PM Yes, but Biden was using it ironically, and quite effectively I thought, to point out that McCain has not been a maverick on issues that actually matter to people.

In doing so, however, he is helping to propagate the McCain Maverick Myth. And he did not question the premise that being a maverick is a qualification for being US president, which is more or less what the McCain campaign appears to be claiming. But that was not my basic objection. You criticized Mrs. Palin, to my mind unjustifiably, for bringing "McCain" and "maverick" into many of her responses whereas it would be reasonable to assume that she had been instructed to do so by the campaign. Left alone, she would presumably have preferred to talk about herself.

He sided with the Bush administration 90% of the time, and supported the key components of Bush's economic and foreign policies.

Very much less and he would probably have had considerable difficulty remaining in the Republican party. More interesting would be to learn how he reacts to others who insisted on being mavericks themselves. My guess would be that one maverick in his administration would be enough and that one would have to be him.

Being a "maverick" is not an independent qualification for being president.

Is it even possible? I have not seen anybody question the presumption that he could become a Republican president and still be a maverick Republican. I guess that either he would have to change or the Republican party would. 

As far as Senator Biden is concerned, I am not sure that a fondness for irony is much of a qualification for being president either; it could even be rather dangerous under some circumstances. Ahmadinejad is strong on irony; if the two of them ever have to confront each other on some important issue and both try being ironical, who knows what might happen!

That is where Mrs Palin has an advantage. She is playing the part of a straight talker who tells it like it is regardless of the consequences. NATO and the G9 have been able to put up with George Bush so I suppose they would eventually get accustomed to her.

Derek

I just grabbed your phrase and used it to my advantage in order to get a chance to stand up for Joe Biden.

Have you ever thought about standing for public office in the USA? That technique might come in handy!

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on October 4, 2008 5:37 AM I had long ago deduced that from the high quality of your postings, Bertha, but it seemed like a good opportunity to show off my pitiful Spanish. I knew that you would not take offense.

Thank you for the compliment; it means a lot to me, especially coming from an English native speaker and, of course, no offense taken. I saw nothing pitiful about your Spanish, quite the contrary. By the way, though the Spanish forum is not even half as populated as this one, we do have some interesting threads going on there and you are welcome to join us and post your comments either in Spanish or in English.

Bertha

Sarah Palin is good at emoting. She is also good at talking in circles, round and round, so it is virtually impossible to follow her argument let alone counter her more bizarre statements, such as this one:

“Say it ain’t so, Joe! There you go pointing backwards again ... Now, doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I’m glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?”

That's "Ms. Palin, a smiling, bubbly vice-presidential candidate who travels in an alternate language universe. For Ms. Palin, such things as context, syntax and the proximity of answers to questions have no meaning. 

After Ms. Palin had woven one of her particularly impenetrable linguistic webs, Joe Biden turned to the debate’s moderator, Gwen Ifill, and said: “Gwen, I don’t know where to start.”

Of course he didn’t know where to start because Ms. Palin’s words don’t mean anything. She’s all punctuation. …

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Nanna

Main Street, Vasilla vernacular nor-withstanding...

Everything You Heard Is Wrong

By STEVEN PINKER

Published: October 3, 2008