1) I've been fairly productive today. Been off to different stores applying for a job. Deposited money at the bank. Did some ironing. I really hope that one of those applications pays off, relatively soon
( Read more... )
2) omg, I so totally agree with you. I can't watch a political speech lately without thinking "...now what was that about, again?" because it has nothing to do with...anything.
4) Any prompts? Hmm, I just remembered that according to hearsay, there might be a Amy/Kif wedding in the upcoming Futurama movie. (Hope that they do get married and remain so during the show, and don't turn into a Krabapple/Skinner affair
( ... )
What I would say about the American political candidates is that I'm not interested in somebody who's going to make the same mistakes that have been made the past 20 years (or more). I want somebody who has the leadership qualities to lead us into the 21st century, where we HAVE TO BE, instead of continuing to mire us in the past. To me, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are mired in the past and will give the United States more of the same. That's why I'm for Barack Obama. To me he's a real leader.
You live in Sweden, right? So you're probably not used to the level of dysfunction that the U.S. government has had in recent years. A lot of it is due to the way our Constitution sets up elections as "winner take all". The result of that has been our 2-party system, which has been mostly dysfunctional during my adult life.
I don't know about Barack Obama not repeating mistakes. In a debate I saw him in, he talked about invading a new country instead of the one American troops are currently in. When another guy said that he didn't think war was the answer, Obama told him that he had no right to say anything because he was for the Iraqui war. Now me, I'd rather vote for the guy that made a mistake and saw it as such, than the guy that wants to make the same mistake again
( ... )
I'd rather we had a parliamentary system (with a prime minister). But our voting system is winner take all, which resulted in our two-party system. There are only two major parties, that routinely get more than 30-40% of the vote. No other party gets even 5% of the vote, so they're not able to win elections, only take votes away from one party or the other.
Hmm, I just recently linked Obama's speech on race in America, and it was very relevant and something this country really needed. It was an issue he talked about that made sense, was complex, and he was bold about it while most people simplify it or brush off the subject/keep it under wraps in fear of offending people.
I have not seen this youtube clip. Because I haven't been watching anything on youtube lately. The youtube clip in my example was posted on a political blog some time ago, and I honestly don't consider your blog a political one. With my example, and the reason why I didn't mention the name of the blog in question, I meant that people accept more fluff in American politics than would in Swedish generally be accepted.
Now don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think I'll be reading the rest of your comments in the year of 2008. I'll read these after the election. Will explain in a later post.
I'm writing the ficlet in a comment on this post, because I am being silly right now and want to avoid seeing all of the attention this post garnered as much as possible.
Comments 11
4) omg, do Amy/Kif!
Reply
Reply
Reply
You live in Sweden, right? So you're probably not used to the level of dysfunction that the U.S. government has had in recent years. A lot of it is due to the way our Constitution sets up elections as "winner take all". The result of that has been our 2-party system, which has been mostly dysfunctional during my adult life.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I have not seen this youtube clip. Because I haven't been watching anything on youtube lately. The youtube clip in my example was posted on a political blog some time ago, and I honestly don't consider your blog a political one. With my example, and the reason why I didn't mention the name of the blog in question, I meant that people accept more fluff in American politics than would in Swedish generally be accepted.
Now don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think I'll be reading the rest of your comments in the year of 2008. I'll read these after the election. Will explain in a later post.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'd suggest listening to his other speeches then because he's talked about policy a lot.
Reply
Leave a comment