Pennsylvania Race Democrat 2008.

[ZAROVE]

Tomorrow is the Pennsylvania Deocratic pRIMARY, AND AN Important race for Hilary Clinton. She needs to win Pennsylvania in order to stay in the running, and if she looses, her camaopugn is essentally over. Obama, who has won more states and nmroe individyuals, however, has taken severe beaings since his Pastors racst comments and Anti-American sentiment have been revealed, and his own policues have come under wuestion.

Clinton has always had a lead in Penn, but her lead decreased ocer time in light of her own sniper fire sandal, but she seems to have recovered.


But time will tell.

I think perhaps Clinton will win Pennsylvania, but it may not aid her in the Convemtion.

[Antimatter]

The Democrats divvy up the delegates anyway, so if the race is anywhere close to 50/50, even with Clinton marginally in the lead, Pennsylvania will not have a significant impact on the race.

And if I may add, Fox's attempts to smear Obama are laughable. I really don't think the association with that pastor reveals anything at all about Obama, particularly given Obama's response to his spiritual leader. And who cares about flag pins or face scratching with the middle finger?

[ZAROVE]

I don't myself trust Obama, and find that I cannot realy back such a man. The Charisma and charm he exudes doens't really negate his lack of expeirnce, qn dhis Grand rhetoric about Change and hope seem to be limite dby his lack of redress on how he'd accomplish these things.

His known Policies appaul me, and his tendancy to make cheap personal attacks is also off puting.


Clinton is not better in many regards, but I trust her margionally more than Obama, so I'd hope she'd win.

But you are right, since the Delegates are divided , Clinton needed a clear and decicive victioy in Pennsylvania, and early on she seemed to have this, with a 20 point lead. Hwever she ponly one with about 9 points ahead.

Final figures arent available and Ive seen some ocnflict in the exac tnumber but its about 9 points.


So it was Obama 45% and c;linton 55 percent, which is still a win for her, but it remains ot be seen who will win the Superdelegates who seem to be swoonign for Obama.


Time will tell, though.

[ZAROVE]

ALSO, on bama and his Pastor, it does tell em a lot.

His Respince to his SPiritual leadr was largley a show for the American public and doens't reveal a lot on the surface of his real ebelifs but shows me he is willign to try to downplay nayhting that coems up.


Also note that if this man is Pbamas Spiritual leader, then we shoudl expect Obama to be at leats reverential to him nd differ to his advise, otherwise he is not very good at being guided, which itself is not a plus, as far as I am concerend.

Of coruse this doesn't mean he shoudl blindly follow his spiritual eladers but you shoudl, if you make them your leaders, follow them at leats to a degree, or honour them in some way.

If Obama cannot do this, then he is not a good candidate.

But then again, the mesage his Pastor delivered is not good for him either.


His political wranglign and speechmakign to cover it and use fpf it as a mean to talk about racism is nohtign but a mean to gloss over a problem and pretend to be socially concious and shift the conversaiton to rcism and its vestages in America, but his responce is inadequate for me.

[KR Wordgazer]

Personally, I find it very disturbing that Obama would sit and listen to that pastor's sermons, without them bothering him to the point where he'd leave the church. I find racism appalling. I find myself bothered that Obama is apparently not as bothered by it as I would be. I would never sit under the teaching of any preacher who taught things of that nature, be they anti-white or anti-black.

I'm also troubled by both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama's spin-doctoring, and by Clinton's lie when she claimed to have been under fire when she landed in Iraq. If she lied about that, what else is she going to lie about?

I'm also concerned about Mr. McCain's temper problems. But so far I'm tending to trust his integrity more than either of the others.

[ZAROVE]

Senator Clinton claimed Sniper fire whn she landed in Bosnia, not Iraq, but those issues other than this small corretion also weigh heavily upon me.


I fail to see either candidate as viable.

I'm not exaclty a supporter of McCain, though, and still woudl liek a system thats not driven by wealth abd pomulgated on popularity.

[KR Wordgazer]

Well, I'm feeling a bit better about Obama since he distanced himself further from that pastor. I'm still leaning towards McCain, however.

As far as a system not "promulgated on popularity," I can see that a monarchical system such as you have espoused would not be such. I'd like further explanation, though, on why you believe a monarchy would not be "driven by wealth." Would the king or queen not be wealthy? Would the persons the king or queen appoints to govern under him/her not be wealthy, or become wealthy after such appointment?

I'm not being critical of your ideas, just seeking more information on how you envision an ideal monarchy working. You have spoken of small regions being run like fiefdoms. Who would be in charge of such? How would the fief-lords be chosen? How do you envision succession of title working-- both in the fiefs and on the throne? Would it be by birth, or some other method?

[ZAROVE]

Well, I'm feeling a bit better about Obama since he distanced himself further from that pastor. I'm still leaning towards McCain, however.

Obama is a liar and monster.

As far as a system not "promulgated on popularity," I can see that a monarchical system such as you have espoused would not be such. I'd like further explanation, though, on why you believe a monarchy would not be "driven by wealth." Would the king or queen not be wealthy? Would the persons the king or queen appoints to govern under him/her not be wealthy, or become wealthy after such appointment?

You also didn't seem to understand that the Monarichal sytem I espouce was ocmpatable with limited nd Decentralised Govenment.

It seems you have an idea that somehow, a Monarch woudl repalce the President but do th same job. I mean no insult of ocuse, but these sorts of qwuestions are answrable form History.


Not all Kings where Wealthy. Numeorus of our Kings have acutlaly had ot ask for money form different soruces. The Origin of Parliment in England occured becuase he needed more money to finance an army to defend his people, and asked for it form both the Lords and representitives form the local counties.

Soem Kings have indeedn been Pauper Kings.

The King rules by Mandate of either Family or by appointment. ( Not all Monarchies are hereditary.)

They donot rule by havign the most money.

Theoreticlaly the same is true of the President of the United States, but to become President you need the backign of wealthy supporters and interest groups. That is not the same with a King, who even if penniless becomes King.

I'm not being critical of your ideas, just seeking more information on how you envision an ideal monarchy working.

Well, the only ideal Monarhcy wudl be that of our Lord and King Jesus the Christ. No earhty crown will be perfect, but it owdl be better than what we have now under our Spirit fo Democracy.

I will start a thread on it, to explain.

You have spoken of small regions being run like fiefdoms. Who would be in charge of such?

A local Lord.

But I'd safeguard the rights of all the poeple.

Likewise, the independant Fiefs would be self-run, and be complaint to a universal law. Sort of like the COsntituton is tot he STates.

How would the fief-lords be chosen?

That depends ont he Feif. IE, soem Feifs may be Republican s they choose and htis is agreed to by the King. In those the leaders are elected. Electign a leader is less problematic on a small scale so thats not as botherosme.

Others may be based aroudn Heredity, in which a Lord pases it to his son, or daghter.

Others may be Churhc-run Fifs under a Bishop, or even Jewish Feifs under Rabbis and Jewish courts, or Muslim Feifs.

Soem Feifs may have Lords chosen in a COnclave.

Soem may be based aroudn Land ownershii;, and whoever owns the title owns it because they own stake in the region they happen to rule.


Its up to them, and hier CHarters.

How do you envision succession of title working-- both in the fiefs and on the throne? Would it be by birth, or some other method?

The matters of sccessionf or hte Feifs woudl be varied and diverse.

The Thrine can be successional in many different ways, and work as well, but a singel succesison style must be adhered to if impelemnted. Right nwo wehave a Hereditary Monarchy, but I'd not object to a Conclavicalone like the Papacy enjoys.


The Holy Roman EMpire elected theirs, via electors, but Im not as keen on that.

[KR Wordgazer]

You also didn't seem to understand that the Monarichal sytem I espouce was ocmpatable with limited nd Decentralised Govenment.

You do keep bringing that up, Zarove, and I don't understand why you make such a big deal of it. As I remember, it started when you made a simple statement that you favored a monarchy. You did not in any way clarify your statement, or give any details as to what kind of monarchy you favored. The thing that comes into most people's minds nowadays (or at least most Americans' minds) when you say "monarchy" is either England's current system, which (it is my understanding) is actually run by Parliament with the queen being more or less a figurehead, or an absolute monarchy where all power is centered in one king.

Given the context, I knew you weren't talking about a figurehead monarchy. So my thoughts defaulted to the other. I submit that it was only natural for them to do so, when you had not qualifed your statement or defined what you meant in any way.

It is not that I didn't believe a monarchy could be run in a decentralized way. It is simply that that is not what I first think of when I think of "monarchy." Fiefdoms such as you describe are a very medieval concept. It is not unnatural that they did not come first to my mind.

So why continually come back to this, as if it were my fault for misunderstanding, when you were the one who didn't explain? (Not that it's at all important whose "fault" it is; I would love to let the matter drop and just go on with the discussion. I don't see that the fact that there was a misunderstanding some time ago has any bearing on what we're talking about now.)

As for succession by heredity, I cannot agree with it. Happening to be born into a certain family does not qualify you for leadership. The only advantage it gives that I can see, is that the heir may be trained in the role from an early age-- but he or she still may be fundamentally unsuited to it. Leaders should become leaders due to leadership ability, tested first in low levels of leadership, and then rising as they prove themselves.

Finally, on what grounds do you assert that Obama is a "monster"? Pretty strong words!

[ZAROVE]

You do keep bringing that up, Zarove, and I don't understand why you make such a big deal of it. As I remember, it started when you made a simple statement that you favored a monarchy. You did not in any way clarify your statement, or give any details as to what kind of monarchy you favored. The thing that comes into most people's minds nowadays (or at least most Americans' minds) when you say "monarchy" is either England's current system, which (it is my understanding) is actually run by Parliament with the queen being more or less a figurehead, or an absolute monarchy where all power is centered in one king.

WHICH is why I keep brigning itup. It snot that Im obsessed or angry, but it seems Americans have never given much thought to alternatives to the existing order of things, and presme a very limited number of options exist.


Incedentlaly even Absolute Monarchies wheren't nessesarily centralised int he King. In a time before the Nation-State system we have now, a Monarhc could be absolute over his domain and still have a decentalised Government if the King dd not excersise direct conorle over every affair in his Kingdom but rather allowed local officials to regulate local matters.

Mypoint is that Americans think its either a Constiutonal Republic, which they now have abandoen din midn in faoru of "Denocracy", or a discatorhsip, or an absolute monarchy in which the parliment stll exists and does its job but a King rather than a President reigns.

Its maddenign as its too simplistic and ignroes most of owrld history.

Given the context, I knew you weren't talking about a figurehead monarchy. So my thoughts defaulted to the other. I submit that it was only natural for them to do so, when you had not qualifed your statement or defined what you meant in any way.

The point is, it shohdln't be natural.

It is not that I didn't believe a monarchy could be run in a decentralized way. It is simply that that is not what I first think of when I think of "monarchy." Fiefdoms such as you describe are a very medieval concept. It is not unnatural that they did not come first to my mind.

They are also a system of Governance that existed the longest in Human hisotyr, or htings very similar, and humanity tends to gravitate toeard this, even if imperfeclty.

So why continually come back to this, as if it were my fault for misunderstanding, when you were the one who didn't explain? (Not that it's at all important whose "fault" it is; I would love to let the matter drop and just go on with the discussion. I don't see that the fact that there was a misunderstanding some time ago has any bearing on what we're talking about now.)

Only to illustrate that peopel these days ten not to think abotu alternatives and have a limitedd scope of vision, not as a personal insult.

As for succession by heredity, I cannot agree with it. Happening to be born into a certain family does not qualify you for leadership.

As if beig elected does. Incedentlaly, the Monarcrichal mindset of Hereditary Kings is not base dupon the idea that soemone is qualified for leadership. Generally that sort of Monarhy is rooted in land ownership and the rights of a landowner, therefore the crown beign passed on hereditarily is seen as the title of land claims beign passed on.

Its not got to do with leadership at all, exceot that the King is responcibke for his tenants.

The only advantage it gives that I can see, is that the heir may be trained in the role from an early age-- but he or she still may be fundamentally unsuited to it. Leaders should become leaders due to leadership ability, tested first in low levels of leadership, and then rising as they prove themselves.

Which dpens't happen in elected systems at all, instead they learn how to dress fo success, win wealthy backers, and say the right words to manipulate he crowd after afifliatign with a major party.


At leats if they are groomed for he position, they are taught how to execute the taska at hand, and if unsuitable, they can delete to othrs who are.

Besides, not all Monarchies are hereditary. s noted, one can have a conclavically selected Monarch, suhc as the Pope, or one that raises base dupon a militery-like ( But not basedon th emilitary nessesarily) succession.

By promotion.

Finally, on what grounds do you assert that Obama is a "monster"? Pretty strong words!

When as an Illinois senator, a bill was proposed befofe the Illinois senate to protect Infants that where Born alive after botched Abortions, due to many beign elft in darkened utility rooms ot die of neglect, Obma refused ot sign sayign ti woudl interfee with a womans right ot choose. Thus he allowed fo open infanticide. Beign that Abortion is murder in and of itself, this is not soemhign I can consider moral, btu ven thoe who support Amton tot he fll 9 months thought htis was barbaric, yet it was supported by Barack Obama.

This alone shows him a Monster withthe blood of hte innocent on his hands.

Such a man won't even cvoe for parental notification for Children who become pregnant. Not just teens, but CHILDREN.


His affiliation with noted a noted Weather Man, a terorist group that set bomb in Washington DC back in the year 1970 and who is not repentant bu thinks the shodl hve doen more, is anther reason.

His socio-economic policies mirror that of Marx.

I can see him as nothign but a Monster. Strign words? Perhaos, but what else can I say of soemone complicit in terror and murder?