Yeah, Matt Damon is who I turn to for sage advice.

But then again, Sarah Silverman is screwing Matt Damon. ;~D

He makes good points, though.

~Zoo

I'm pretty and good at pretending I am feeling an emotion when I don't. This makes me qualified to give good advice on political issues to the public.

Which point?  The one where there's a 1 in 3 chance that we might have "Prs. Palin" in the next for years?   As apposed to, if Obama wins, there is a 100% chance of having a president with little experience to speak of?

Or the shot he took (in leiu of a point) about banning books (which has already been discredited) or believing in the Bible (which would disqualify everyone running)?

Which point was "good"?

Jythier, this is the stupidest thing to come out of your mouth, imo! Seriously man!

What has Obama done?  What are his qualifications for being CEO of our country?  He claims to have worked for the common good in Chicago.  Where are examples of things he actually did?   Just because he says he knows stuff doesn't mean it's so.

As for taking advice from actors, that is just plain foolish.  I bet Putin would be more afraid of Palin than Obama and Biden combined.  But then again, Damon has pretended to be a special agent butt kicker so I guess he'd know

I bet Putin is equally unafraid of all of the above. In fact, considering the current U.S geopolitical position I think Putin will be quite content to stay in his backyard (sphere of influence) and watch things unfold. He knows all too well he doesn't need to get involved as we're working quite diligently to self-destruct our empire through over-extension, politically, economically and militarily. If anything, talking tough to Russia is the last thing anyone should be doing!

1) Economic troubles at home, not going away anytime soon

2) Massive commitments of manpower, material and money to eastern europian nations, the middleast, asia and certain south american countries.

3) Currently fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes troop reductions are coming in Iraq but there will always be a permanent presence of at least 20,000-30,000 in several major airbases, plus some of those troops will instead get shifted to Afghanistan, plus the army needs a breather to re-equip, re-train, repair etc.

4) Situation in Pakistan heating up. Pakistan has an army 600,000 strong and several division level commanders have issued orders stating that U.S forces crossing the border from Afghanistan are to be attacked as invading hostiles unless they knock and ask nicely to come into the country first. If new president of Pakistan can't control his folks it could turn into another shooting war with U.S forces involved.

5) Paraguay, Bolivia and Venezuela all very anti-US right now. Only major player in south America that's well and truly in the U.S camp and actively supporting is Columbia, which is also a big drain of U.S resources. Chavez has openly threatened to cut off Venezuela's oil imports to the States if things keep up this way, States currently imports more than 60% of energy from foreign sources. If this happens U.S will have to do something to try and stop Chavez, again requiring a lot of resources whether economic or military.

6) China's continually building up their military. They're still playing the waiting game but definitely aren't going to stay on the sidelines forever. Considering that they're in direct competition with U.S interests over resources in Africa and Asia, they'll most likely end up in the anti-U.S camp as well.

Sorry, more to add to my previous list-

7) The whole Iran/Syria/Lebanon issue in the middleast. No matter which way you cut it, the U.S is dedicated to supporting it's ally Israel. This is yet more resources the U.S has pinned down here, especially if a shooting war starts between Israel and Iran

8) Almost 10 trillion dollars in debt, value of U.S currency is dropping compared to all the major players. Backing up any tough talk against Russia with substantial military action will be very expensive indeed. Maybe too expensive.

9) Foreign allies drying up. U.K is in the process of pulling out of Iraq, highly doubtful that they'll join in another major military endeavour with the States until present conflicts are resolved.

10) NATO unlikely to do anything against Russia as Russia is a net exporter of energy to Europe. Unlikely that Europe wants to jeapordize that so long as Russia stays in their backyard.

No matter your political party damon is right we know nothing of her, she was picked for politics, hardly the move of a maverick, more one of swindler.

There is the main problem, our country(country first, you know) is NOT a business.  There are aspects of our nations business that should be run that way, but to lead a nation is more than being a CEO.  As parated pointed out that 232 years ago our forefathers may not have meant the president to be a "leader" and just meant him to be an "administrator"(this can be debated).  However, to say that is still the case now I think is wrong.  Things change over 232 years.  Humans have taken flight, we have had an industrial revolution, we can destroy the world in one fell swoop if we want.  Oh I would say that the presidents of today need to be leaders, not CEO's  CEO's only do what is best for their specific business, if we have another CEO, this country will look 10 times worse in 4 years.  What happened on todays market may very well be just the beginning.

Administrators coordinate the leaders under them.  The guy running the hospital (for instance) isn't usually a doctor, pharmacist, nurse, tech, maintenance worker, janitor, volunteer worker, food service manager, or social services coordinator... the administrator doesn't have to be any of these things.

The administor has to be able to make decisions based on the needs of the departments that make up the hospital as a whole.

Does that sound a little like what a President does?

And the new fangled bells and whistles of today's world don't change the job of the administrator, just the departments that make up the whole.

Besides, Matt Damon is a hypocrit, when he first went ga ga over Obama, he had less time in government than Palin has... but that didn't bother Matt Damon at all.

Oh, and Also Mooseplow, what front runner has ever picked a running mate for anything other than "political reasons".  Your whole accusation is moronic.

If Matt Damon is such a brainiac to be trusted on political issues, why doesn't he know more about Palin?  Does he not know how to use the internet?  I simply googled "Sarah Palin on the issues" and answered the questions he had about her.  She isn't completely on the Intelligent Design wagon so she states she believes in some aspects of Evolution (which is a theory and not fact no matter how widely accepted) and that is why she believes in presenting both.  Heaven forbid we expect kids to look at information and come to their own conclusion! 

Many claim that she "spouts abstinence only" which isn't true.  She has stated she is pro-contraception.  So many people object to her pro-life stance that they turn their minds off to anything else about her.  I happen to be pro-choice but even she agrees that if Roe v Wade were overturned (which is doubtful) it should be left to the people to decide what comes next.  Everyone claims that the majority or mainstream oppose her view so why would they be worried about her stance?  I'm not and I have children whose lives could certainly be effected.

I respect her stance on abortion.  She believes that life starts at conception and that God is responsible for bringing about that life.  If you truly believe that, it wouldn't matter how that conception came about (i.e. rape).  I'd rather have a leader who is true to their faith than one who claims to be of a faith but doesn't walk the walk.