Is "change" a good idea? Is Obama a good idea?

[lucy]

I didn't say they don't mind giving taxes. In fact I wondered exactly about the contrary. I wondered why you prefer giving your money on your own free will to some idiots in banks and insurance companies, but have a huge problem giving it to the state.

And why shouldn't a majority rule over a minority? Is it better if it's vice versa? Or is it better when the bloke with the most money decides for everybody else? Or do you really think societies work better without an authority at all? If yes, please take a look at Somalia: AK47 rules. The price (and a bloody one it is) is paid by the weak: The women, the children, the poor.
So, to sum it up: There is always an individual or a group that will decide. And imho it is better when that group is as large as possible.

And finally i wonder why Americans love to refer to their country as the land of freedom, or the bewarer of freedom, sometimes even as the inventor of freedom, when in fact you feel so suppressed by your government.

By the way: I'm not looking for a change. In fact, if America wouldn't mess with the rest of the world and get back to work together with other countries (but hey, i think you'll learning the hard way right now that doing it on your own wont work any longer) as it did for a short time i couldn't care less who's going to be elected.
The way it is, i prefer a guy who at least promises to listen to others to another guy who knows the world from a soldiers point of view. But my preference is of course utterly insignificant, since i can't vote

[mkemse]

I didn't say they don't mind giving taxes. In fact I wondered exactly about the contrary. I wondered why you prefer giving your money on your own free will to some idiots in banks and insurance companies, but have a huge problem giving it to the state.

And why shouldn't a majority rule over a minority? Is it better if it's vice versa? Or is it better when the bloke with the most money decides for everybody else? Or do you really think societies work better without an authority at all? If yes, please take a look at Somalia: AK47 rules. The price (and a bloody one it is) is paid by the weak: The women, the children, the poor.
So, to sum it up: There is always an individual or a group that will decide. And imho it is better when that group is as large as possible.

And finally i wonder why Americans love to refer to their country as the land of freedom, or the bewarer of freedom, sometimes even as the inventor of freedom, when in fact you feel so suppressed by your government.

By the way: I'm not looking for a change. In fact, if America wouldn't mess with the rest of the world and get back to work together with other countries (but hey, i think you'll learning the hard way right now that doing it on your own wont work any longer) as it did for a short time i couldn't care less who's going to be elected.
The way it is, i prefer a guy who at least promises to listen to others to another guy who knows the world from a soldiers point of view. But my preference is of course utterly insignificant, since i can't vote

The only reason the USA has Alienated most of the World, is do to the actions of our current Adm.
The Reality here is in 2000 when Bill Clinton left office, we had Allies and friends around the World
In 8 years in Office our Crrent President has managed to chase away and alienate most of our allies world wide and if not for the British, we would most likely not have 1 major allie on the planet
Change here involves far more the our need for alternative energy sources, we have Major Economic Issueswhich were trigger by the current Adm. we have health icost issues, the same our current President has more failed policies then any other President in US History, the whole list of faiures is far to long to list here