once again the jokes write themselves...

<img src="http://www.forumspile.com/Stop-Kitten.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by manimtired:
lol. i think you know what i was getting at..aka the US isnt canada's "home team" per say so why should i believe canadians would choose whats in the best interest of the US…

you think me and sweetie are trying to sabotage your government?

the fact you both support our gov going socialist… then yes.

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
except its not

times infinity!

argh. . .the duties and role of the vp are described in article 1 of the constitution, which is about the legislature- the vp is to be the president of the senate. . .the vp's sole role in regards to the executive is when the president dies, where, as president of the senate, the vp is next in the line of succession; there is no other role, duty or responsbility delegated to the vp in article 2. . .tell me how i'm wrong.

isnt your point that Biden is wrong about what the VP does and Palin has no idea.

does this sum up the argument?

the vice president is elected in an executive fashion, and given an executive title. his minor legislative role is certainly smaller than the executive powers given to the senate in article ii

at the end of the day, i dont care about palin, or biden for that matter. i will admit to being a little disappointed in mccain for nominating someone he hardly knows, though

in the interest of breaking things up, i present to you 'Song for Sarah'. I want to Fly in to Your airspase! I made A teliscop for YOU!

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by lagas:
Look, its not only canadians, it's the whole world who wants the US to choose Obama as president. After 8 years of complete disaster in every major issue (except, I must say, AIDS fight in the world), everybody will welcome change in the White House.

there are at least two issues that should be addressed here- 1) i agree that there are a lot of people around the world who want obama to become president because he is viewed as more enlightened, and believe that his foreign policy will be different. . .i don't dispute that contention…

however, 2) i believe that trade will become a sticking point, and that an obama administration, coupled with a congress hell-bent on using populism to suck the life out of free-market capitalism, by throwing up trade barriers and insisting on unreasonable terms for trade treaties, will cause increased havoc. the world is heavily integrated (as friedman calls it, the world is flat), and as much as obama and congress would like to, we can't simply raise tariffs and block foreign trade because that's not how the world works anymore. free trade and agreements bringing down trade barriers are essential to the continued economic growth of not just the u.s., but of the rest of the world. and having obama threaten to pull out of NAFTA or attempt to re-negotiate NAFTA would be a terrible decision; whatever we think we can get, Canada and Mexico are more than happy to take something else away. As I posted yesterday, there is concern in India about trade, there is also concern in europe about trade. . .

of course, i dispute the contention that we should make our decisions based on what the world thinks- foreign intervention in american politics was a great concern of the founding fathers, and it is clear that it is still a concern today.

I agree that trade's not a strong issue for the dems, true, but, in the eyes of the world, this election is larger than trade. I see the enthusiasm in my fellow Chileans citizens who see this election with genuine interest, specially the Obama's campaign…It's also true that the voter's shouldn't base their decisions on the preference of the rest of the world, but there must be something right about Obama if a large majority of the global village approves his approach to a large majority of issues that face not only America, but the planet as well….

the real question is, what are your feelings on matías fernández

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the vice president is elected in an executive fashion, and given an executive title. his minor legislative role is certainly smaller than the executive powers given to the senate in article ii

the vp has ZERO executive powers, his sole duty is to replace the president either when the president dies or is declared incapacitated; as president of the senate (a legislative title), he is the presiding officer and shall cast any tie-breaking vote. . .the vice president, under the language of the constitution, is the person that comes in second in the voting. only after aaron burr mucked things up was the 12th amendment passed clarifying the electoral process.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
and having obama threaten to pull out of NAFTA or attempt to re-negotiate NAFTA would be a terrible decision;

i'll put a fair amount of money that Obama's NAFTA talk was a load of BS. he's not pulling out of NAFTA…no way.

second in voting for head of the executive branch. president of the senate is at best a secondary title to vice president. being the replacement for the president is far more important than taking an executive role over the senate. even in this instance they name him 'president' of the senate denoting an executive role

Originally posted by very sonick:
i'll put a fair amount of money that Obama's NAFTA talk was a load of BS. he's not pulling out of NAFTA…no way.

i'm not willing to take a stance specifically on obama, but protectionist presidents generally govern with an open mind to fair trade once elected

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the real question is, what are your feelings on matías fernández

do you mean Matigol?

the one that sits on villarreal's bench. he was rumored to be coming to england last summer

edit: yes matigol

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the one that sits on villarreal's bench. he was rumored to be coming to england last summer

edit: yes matigol

yes, he's having a tough time in Villa…maybe a change in scenery will do good for him, Pellegrini's pretty tough, he doesnt have good relationships with other Chileans players in general (see when he was HC in River Plate with Marcelo Salas)… either Italy or England should be a good change for him, IMO

Originally posted by lagas:
I agree that trade's not a strong issue for the dems, true, but, in the eyes of the world, this election is larger than trade. I see the enthusiasm in my fellow Chileans citizens who see this election with genuine interest, specially the Obama's campaign…It's also true that the voter's shouldn't base their decisions on the preference of the rest of the world, but there must be something right about Obama if a large majority of the global village approves his approach to a large majority of issues that face not only America, but the planet as well….

and that's exactly why any such influence be limited….the large majority of the "global village" would support a yellow dog for u.s. president as long as it was a "democrat."

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:

Originally posted by very sonick:
i'll put a fair amount of money that Obama's NAFTA talk was a load of BS. he's not pulling out of NAFTA…no way.

i'm not willing to take a stance specifically on obama, but protectionist presidents generally govern with an open mind to fair trade once elected

fair trade. . .pshaw. . .just another word for protectionist- yes, let's trade, but only by my rules. i think this is one area where arthwys and i probably disagree (i think it was arthwys who posted about ron paul and fair trade not free trade, but i could be wrong)

so, you think that obama promising to renegotiate NAFTA was a lie? wow. . .color me shocked. . .just another broken promise. change you can believe in!

im sorry, i meant to say free trade not fair.

ill assume the nafta question was not directed at me

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
im sorry, i meant to say free trade not fair.

ill assume the nafta question was not directed at me

you are correct, sir!