View Full Version : The Obama Thread (Merged x6)
Abaddon
11-14-2007, 07:55 PM
there really isn't anyone to root for.
Mr Sparkle
11-14-2007, 07:56 PM
I root for you Abby. change the Nation.
do it now :cmad:
Abaddon
11-14-2007, 07:57 PM
Once I have a Doosmday device built and fully operational.:up:
Hotwire
11-14-2007, 07:58 PM
Yep. Sadly, thats exactly what it is. How anyone can still support this guy is beyond me.
Well, when I make my choice for president, there is more to it than wether or not he kept records. All of the things he did in office, would be a matter of public record anyway. If you really want to know what he did, just head over to the hall of records.
plus, I give Matt 17 years to become a Republican.
infact, make it 7.
Because I dislike Barack Obama hardly makes me a Republican. I am simply a Democrat who realizes that Barack Obama is hideously underqualified, contradicts himself on a daily basis, and really has no business being president of these United States. I vote based on candidate, not party and unlike many Obama and Hilary supporters not based on skin color or reproductive organs. If supporting Bill Richardson over two unqualified, insincere candidates makes me a Republican, I guess I am.
Well, when I make my choice for president, there is more to it than wether or not he kept records. All of the things he did in office, would be a matter of public record anyway. If you really want to know what he did, just head over to the hall of records.
Its not so much that he doesn't have them that bothers me, its more that he criticized another candidate about not having her record days before. All his supporters hail him as being above politics-as-usual and this total outsider, and yet he is playing the game (and his supporters for that matter) better than a seasoned vet like Ted Kennedy.
ShadowBoxing
11-14-2007, 08:04 PM
wow, really?
gee I guess it's settled guys!
close the thread.
He is supporting Richardson who is so fiscally conservative it hurts my eyes to read his financial policies.
He is supporting Richardson who is so fiscally conservative it hurts my eyes to read his financial policies.
A fiscal conservative is exactly what this country needs right now, though. Bush's spending was out of control. If our government were a privately run business they would've been bankrupt 10 times over if not more due to the Bush Administration's spending. We need someone to make the cuts, rope things in, and get our country out of the red. We don't need someone who is going to waste more money.
ShadowBoxing
11-14-2007, 08:11 PM
A fiscal conservative is exactly what this country needs right now, though...Not an ammendment against deficit spending though. That's just retarded.
YsoSerious
11-14-2007, 08:12 PM
Most Democrats who support Obama do so because he's the lesser of 3 Democratic evils (Clinton, Edwards,Obama-none of the others has a shot in hell).Only the Democrats could screw up a golden opportunity to win back the presidency by thinking Hillary Clinton can win.The Republican base realizes Rudy Guilliani actually has the only shot at beating Hillary in 2008. Even Pat Robertson realizes this and has shown his support. If the Democrats want to win in 2008 they better jump on the Obama bandwagon or risk a humiliating defeat in 2008. The Democratic party failed on their promise to end the war and they will be held accountable next November. Hillary can publish polls putting herself ahead of Obama all she wants, she just isnt liked by alot of people. Not because of gender but personality. Disagree all you want but these are facts that Democrats need to face or they will watch the Republicans win again and blame another election on "hanging chads".
Hotwire
11-14-2007, 08:13 PM
Its not so much that he doesn't have them that bothers me, its more that he criticized another candidate about not having her record days before. All his supporters hail him as being above politics-as-usual and this total outsider, and yet he is playing the game (and his supporters for that matter) better than a seasoned vet like Ted Kennedy.
ALL politicians are hyprcrites. Bush criticized Kerry for being a "flip-flopper", yet he's changed his reason for going to war with Iraq at least three times. They's all accused their opponents of doing the things they themselves do and try to hide.
Not an ammendment against deficit spending though. That's just retarded.
I don't think its such a bad idea. Especially since there are means to go around it if absolutely neccessary. It is simply a way to add accountability and keep spending under control.
The Chairman
11-14-2007, 08:15 PM
Was I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought it would be another Cellslim rant?
ALL politicians are hyprcrites. Bush criticized Kerry for being a "flip-flopper", yet he's changed his reason for going to war with Iraq at least three times. They's all accused their opponents of doing the things they themselves do and try to hide.
1) I'm very aware of that. Obama however has been running on a platform of being above that (and its just about his only platform) and has been calling people out for it. Therefore it stinks even worse when he does it.
2) Why do you keep using Bush as an example to justify Obama's actions? I'm not a Bush supporter. You're not dealing with Celldog, so its really not a valid argument with me. Also its invalid because just as it is not valid to use Bill Clinton's short comings to defend Bush, it is not valid to use Bush's shortcomings to defend Obama.
Most Democrats who support Obama do so because he's the lesser of 3 Democratic evils (Clinton, Edwards,Obama-none of the others has a shot in hell).Only the Democrats could screw up a golden opportunity to win back the presidency by thinking Hillary Clinton can win.The Republican base realizes Rudy Guilliani actually has the only shot at beating Hillary in 2008. Even Pat Robertson realizes this and has shown his support. If the Democrats want to win in 2008 they better jump on the Obama bandwagon or risk a humiliating defeat in 2008. The Democratic party failed on their promise to end the war and they will be held accountable next November. Hillary can publish polls putting herself ahead of Obama all she wants, she just isnt liked by alot of people. Not because of gender but personality. Disagree all you want but these are facts that Democrats need to face or they will watch the Republicans win again and blame another election on "hanging chads".
Hilary doesn't publish the polls that show her ahead of Obama. Nonpartisan organizations like the AP do. Groups like Obama has virtually no chance against any of the Republican candidates. His best shot is MAYBE Fred Thompson, who won't win a primary. Obama will win at the most 12 states.
Hotwire
11-14-2007, 08:18 PM
1) I'm very aware of that. Obama however has been running on a platform of being above that (and its just about his only platform) and has been calling people out for it. Therefore it stinks even worse when he does it.
2) Why do you keep using Bush as an example to justify Obama's actions? I'm not a Bush supporter. You're not dealing with Celldog, so its really not a valid argument with me. Also its invalid because just as it is not valid to use Bill Clinton's short comings to defend Bush, it is not valid to use Bush's shortcomings to defend Obama.
I'm using Bush because you asked, can anyone support this guy for president. I'm showing that of course they can, look at the guy currently holding the job.
AhabTheArab
11-14-2007, 08:20 PM
Because I dislike Barack Obama hardly makes me a Republican. I am simply a Democrat who realizes that Barack Obama is hideously underqualified, contradicts himself on a daily basis, and really has no business being president of these United States. I vote based on candidate, not party and unlike many Obama and Hilary supporters not based on skin color or reproductive organs. If supporting Bill Richardson over two unqualified, insincere candidates makes me a Republican, I guess I am.
god damn you pushy republicans!
I'm using Bush because you asked, can anyone support this guy for president. I'm showing that of course they can, look at the guy currently holding the job.
Bush had a luxury Barack Obama does not. Karl Rove, who like him or hate him is pretty much the greatest campaign mind of this generation (matched only by Bill Clinton, and that is iffy).
god damn you pushy republicans!
I was unaware that not being a die hard Obama supporter makes you a Republican now-a-days. Am I racist too? :csad:
Mr. Socko
11-14-2007, 08:31 PM
Because I dislike Barack Obama hardly makes me a Republican. I am simply a Democrat who realizes that Barack Obama is hideously underqualified, contradicts himself on a daily basis, and really has no business being president of these United States. I vote based on candidate, not party and unlike many Obama and Hilary supporters not based on skin color or reproductive organs. If supporting Bill Richardson over two unqualified, insincere candidates makes me a Republican, I guess I am.
I agree Matt.
terry78
11-14-2007, 08:34 PM
I was unaware that not being a die hard Obama supporter makes you a Republican now-a-days. Am I racist too? :csad:
Yes. :o
rdh007
11-14-2007, 08:36 PM
Being First Lady does not experience make.
Armand Z Trip
11-14-2007, 08:39 PM
What does that article mean? Clinton and Edwards have better files?
Did you see Saturday's speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc&feature=related Dude is back in the race. Guy talks for twenty minutes and failed NBC windbag Britt Hume said - The truth is, though, I watched the Obama speech. He said nothing substantively important. But it was well delivered. Nothing substantively important? Britt Hume, what a Faux News cupid stunt. This is what Barack is up against, if I was him I'd burn my supermarket receipts.
Barack experienced the results of American foreign policy as a child in Indonesia (he went a regular school, it was not an Al Qaeda training camp:yay: ). He worked his way through college, he has a wife and kids. He left a high paying job on Wall Street to enter public service. I support him.
ShadowBoxing
11-14-2007, 08:39 PM
Being First Lady does not experience make.
Actually being a first lady is experience, a lot in fact.
Yes. :o
But I love you, Spoons, and Pickles....but only cause I want you guys to play on my basketball team :csad:
I don't care if its Hypocrisy, all it proves it that, like me, nukka didn't wanna buy a filing cabinet.
What does that article mean? Clinton and Edwards have better files?
No, it means he criticizes other candidates for not being able to do something he himself cannot do.
Did you see Saturday's speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc&feature=related Dude is back in the race. Guy talks for twenty minutes and failed NBC windbag Britt Hume said - The truth is, though, I watched the Obama speech. He said nothing substantively important. But it was well delivered. Nothing substantively important? Britt Hume, what a Faux News cupid stunt. This is what Barack is up against, if I was him I'd burn my supermarket receipts.
But Obama DOESN't say anything of substance or importance. When asked what he would do as President he will say something like "We need hope".
Barack experienced the results of American foreign policy as a child in Indonesia (he went a regular school, it was not an Al Qaeda training camp:yay: ). He worked his way through college, he has a wife and kids. He left a high paying job on Wall Street to enter public service. I support him.
I was unaware that any of that made up for virtually no experience in law making or an executive branch position and qualified one to be the leader of a country. :huh:
Armand Z Trip
11-14-2007, 08:49 PM
No, it means he criticizes other candidates for not being able to do something he himself cannot do.
But Obama DOESN't say anything of substance or importance. When asked what he would do as President he will say something like "We need hope".
I was unaware that any of that made up for virtually no experience in law making or an executive branch position and qualified one to be the leader of a country. :huh:
I'm sorry I was unaware of him criticizng people for not producing files.
Did you watch the speech?
Well now you know.:woot:
gkokujin
11-14-2007, 08:51 PM
lol, the "privilege" lives on:ninja:
I'm sorry I was unaware of him criticizng people for not producing files.
Yep. Thus the title, the hypocrisy of Barack Obama.
Did you watch the speech?
Which one? I've watched several of his speeches and each was as lacking in substance as the last.
Well now you know.:woot:
Oh...I guess you showed me. :csad: :cwink:
lol, the "privilege" lives on:ninja:
Hehe, care to expand on that thought?
YsoSerious
11-14-2007, 08:58 PM
Actually being a first lady is experience, a lot in fact.
Even if you think being first lady is experience, what did Hillary do as first lady that was that impressive? All she did was complain about health care, did anything happen? Weve had 2 decades of Clinton -Bush. It's time to move on.
gkokujin
11-14-2007, 08:58 PM
Hehe, care to expand on that thought?
not really. :cwink:
just window shopping
eta: I will ask this though.
Um...Who has previous experience being president...besides a former president? Does anyone really think there is some life altering political event as a senator that makes someone LVL+ EXP?
GET: YOU have learned PRESIDENT!
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:00 PM
Until we clone Theodore Roosevelt my vote goes to Obama.
not really. :cwink:
just window shopping
eta: I will ask this though.
Um...Who has previous experience being president...besides a former president? Does anyone really think there is some life altering political event as a senator that makes someone LVL+ EXP?
GET: YOU have learned PRESIDENT!
I'd argue that being a governor is the only suitable qualification as it is experience in the executive branch. Being a governor is pretty much the equivilant to being being the president of a state.
I'd certainly argue that 3 years in national politics is not enough.
Based on your privledged comment, I will ask you this:
Is it really wise to vote on someone simply because they are not white?
Until we clone Theodore Roosevelt my vote goes to Obama.
May I ask why? And I am being serious in asking.
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:07 PM
May I ask why? And I am being serious in asking.
Roosevelt or Obama?
Obama's an idealist, and I think America could use an idealist. He also seems to be one of the few people who actually wants universal health care in America.
Armand Z Trip
11-14-2007, 09:07 PM
Yep. Thus the title, the hypocrisy of Barack Obama.
Which one? I've watched several of his speeches and each was as lacking in substance as the last.
Oh...I guess you showed me. :csad: :cwink:
Cool.
The one from Saturday night, the one I linked to. The one people say has put him back in the race. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3853222&page=1 http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/hope4/C5HM
Well, I try.:yay:
Roosevelt or Obama?
Obama's an idealist, and I think America could use an idealist. He also seems to be one of the few people who actually wants universal health care in America.
Practically every democrat running supports universal health care :huh:
Also, Jimmy Carter was an idealist. Look how that turned out. Obama has no platform. He has no experience. Washington will eat him alive like it did Carter.
Cool.
The one from Saturday night, the one I linked to. The one people say has put him back in the race. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3853222&page=1 http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/hope4/C5HM
Well, I try.:yay:
Oh, yeah, I saw news clips. It was nothing different than what he has been saying all election. Obscure intangible promises. No one is denying he is a good public speaker. Hell, it is what he should be doing instead of these stupid town hall meetings. Unfortunately, after seeing him in the debates, his speeches come off as that much more rehearsed and make him look that much more fake.
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:17 PM
Practically every democrat running supports universal health care :huh:
Also, Jimmy Carter was an idealist. Look how that turned out. Obama has no platform. He has no experience. Washington will eat him alive like it did Carter.
Yes, Edwards supports universal health care, and the odds of him winning are dismal. Back when Hilary's husband was in office she tried to instate universal healthcare and the Republicans aka the insurance companies shut her down.
YsoSerious
11-14-2007, 09:19 PM
Practically every democrat running supports universal health care :huh:
Also, Jimmy Carter was an idealist. Look how that turned out. Obama has no platform. He has no experience. Washington will eat him alive like it did Carter.
There's idealism and there's harsh cold reality.Does America really want the government getting involved with healthcare? It scares the hell out of me!
Yes, Edwards supports universal health care, and the odds of him winning are dismal. Back when Hilary's husband was in office she tried to instate universal healthcare and the Republicans aka the insurance companies shut her down.
Edwards' chances aren't as bad as it seems.
Right now in Iowa the race is close as can be.
Hilary 24 %
Edwards 23 %
Obama 22 %
If any of the underdogs win Iowa, their campaign will snow ball. Supporters of other candidates will jump ship and undecides will climb aboard too.
But what is to stop the Republicans and insurance companies from shutting down Obama? Why is his support of health care magically going to pass? That is why you said you support him, so I assume you know something I don't.
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:22 PM
There's idealism and there's harsh cold reality.Does America really want the government getting involved with healthcare? It scares the hell out of me!
Every single nation in Europe has universal health care and their citizens on average live longer and make more money then we do. Still scared? Go watch Michael Moore's "Sicko".
There's idealism and there's harsh cold reality.Does America really want the government getting involved with healthcare? It scares the hell out of me!
I'm sort of in the middle. If someone cannot afford basic health care, I believe the government whom the person pays taxes to for services has an obligation to step in and provide it. I definitely believe all minors should have government health care. I don't believe a European public health care system would work in the US YET as US citizens are not willing to accept the dramatic tax hike that would come with it. It would have to be gradual. We would have to spend at least 20 years building to it. If this President really wants universal healthcare in the future, they will make it their goal to find a middle ground for now.
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:25 PM
I'm sort of in the middle. If someone cannot afford basic health care, I believe the government whom the person pays taxes to for services has an obligation to step in and provide it. I definitely believe all minors should have government health care. I don't believe a European public health care system would work in the US YET as US citizens are not willing to accept the dramatic tax hike that would come with it. It would have to be gradual. We would have to spend at least 20 years building to it. If this President really wants universal healthcare in the future, they will make it their goal to find a middle ground for now.
A tax hike may not be necessary. A reallocation of funds would be, heaven forbid we'd be forced to stop policing regions like Africa.
YsoSerious
11-14-2007, 09:26 PM
Every single nation in Europe has universal health care and their citizens on average live longer and make more money then we do. Still scared? Go watch Michael Moore's "Sicko".
They live longer because they dont kill each other as much. And God bless Michael Moore but what makes him so credible, anyway?
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:29 PM
They live longer because they dont kill each other as much. And God bless Michael Moore but what makes him so credible, anyway?
Wrong, they live longer because of less stress and better medicine. Did you know that medical bills are the largest single cause of bankruptcy in America?
How is Michael Moore not credible? I'll trust him over fat cat doctors and Republicans telling us about the horrors of universal health care. :whatever:
how could Government getting into Healthcare scar the **** out of you? Are you a drug company? it'd take that much off your back because you wouldn't have to pay for all the doctor visits and ****.
A tax hike may not be necessary. A reallocation of funds would be, heaven forbid we'd be forced to stop policing regions like Africa.
Don't be silly. A tax hike would be very necessary. To stop "policing" reigions like Africa is impractical. You'd see mass genocide. Like I said, if it is going to be done in America (and I am not against it) it will have to be a transition.
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:35 PM
Don't be silly. A tax hike would be very necessary. To stop "policing" reigions like Africa is impractical. You'd see mass genocide. Like I said, if it is going to be done in America (and I am not against it) it will have to be a transition.
Since when was it America's job to police the world? I'm all for neutrality, works for Switzerland just fine.
Since when was it America's job to police the world? I'm all for neutrality, works for Switzerland just fine.
There is a school of thought that those with power have the responsibility to protect the weak. Not sure if I agree or not, in all honesty. But I don't think allowing genocide when we have the capability to stop it is a good idea.
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:42 PM
There is a school of thought that those with power have the responsibility to protect the weak. Not sure if I agree or not, in all honesty. But I don't think allowing genocide when we have the capability to stop it is a good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29
Not worth it
Abaddon
11-14-2007, 09:55 PM
please, it's naive to think that if you ignore something it'll never effect you.
Kritish
11-14-2007, 09:57 PM
please, it's naive to think that if you ignore something it'll never effect you.
I try to not support wars that I wouldn't sign up for? Are you willing to die to go save some suck ass country? Until you are stop *****ing.
Abaddon
11-14-2007, 10:01 PM
I try to not support wars that I wouldn't sign up for? Are you willing to die to go save some suck ass country? Until you are stop *****ing.
so what would you fight for?
Kritish
11-14-2007, 10:03 PM
so what would you fight for?
If my country was directly under attack like Europe was in during WW2.
Abaddon
11-14-2007, 10:05 PM
I don't believe you.:o
Kritish
11-14-2007, 10:10 PM
I don't believe you.:o
I start seeing soldiers marching down the streets I'll get motivated. At least I'm being consistent while you aren't. Something tells me if we launched action against Darfur you wouldn't be running down to the nearest Marine recruiter.
Superhobo
11-14-2007, 10:10 PM
....
*sits back.*
Abaddon
11-14-2007, 10:15 PM
I start seeing soldiers marching down the streets I'll get motivated. At least I'm being consistent while you aren't. Something tells me if we launched action against Darfur you wouldn't be running down to the nearest Marine recruiter.
of course, I'm not going to risk my life if I don't have to. As horrible as I feel for those people suffering, I still care more about me than I do about them. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who are willing take the risk.
Superhobo
11-14-2007, 10:18 PM
of course, I'm not going to risk my life if I don't have to. As horrible as I feel for those people suffering, I still care more about me than I do about them. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who are willing take the risk.
:dry:
:o
Kritish
11-14-2007, 10:21 PM
of course, I'm not going to risk my life if I don't have to. As horrible as I feel for those people suffering, I still care more about me than I do about them. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who are willing take the risk.
No idiot, people in the armed forces don't get to choose what wars they fight in. There is no such thing as "willing to take the risk".
Abaddon
11-14-2007, 10:23 PM
No idiot, people in the armed forces don't get to choose what wars they fight in. There is no such thing as "willing to take the risk".
you're talking about military action in Darfur, and if I would sign up if it were to happen.:dry:
TBadora
11-14-2007, 10:25 PM
I see it at about 85% chance he's your new president.
hippie_hunter
11-14-2007, 10:33 PM
Roosevelt or Obama?
Obama's an idealist, and I think America could use an idealist. He also seems to be one of the few people who actually wants universal health care in America.
There's a difference between being an idealist, which is what this country really needs and being practical which is what Obama lacks.
He says he wants to impliment universal health care, but he doesn't go into detail how and with the way our budget is these days it's downright impossible to do it. We can't afford it.
He goes off to support something rather good like biofuels, but instead chooses crappy American corn ethanol instead of the far superior Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
He says that he'll end the war in Iraq responsibly, building a 21st century military, help the enviroment, etc. but not go into enough detail how to impliment those ideals.
Hence why I'm voting for Ron Paul. He's idealistic, and I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he goes into detail on how he's going to do it and he's consistent.
hippie_hunter
11-14-2007, 10:36 PM
I see it at about 85% chance he's your new president.
Not gonna happen because Clinton has got the Democratic nomination sealed.
There's a difference between being an idealist, which is what this country really needs and being practical which is what Obama lacks.
He says he wants to impliment universal health care, but he doesn't go into detail how and with the way our budget is these days it's downright impossible to do it. We can't afford it.
He goes off to support something rather good like biofuels, but instead chooses crappy American corn ethanol instead of the far superior Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
He says that he'll end the war in Iraq responsibly, building a 21st century military, help the enviroment, etc. but not go into enough detail how to impliment those ideals.
Hence why I'm voting for Ron Paul. He's idealistic, and I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he goes into detail on how he's going to do it and he's consistent.
Really? You're a Ron Paul supporter, H_H? I agree that he has a good plan, and is consistent...but I really think voting him is the equivilant to a third party vote. A waste. He can't win. Then again, enough support could land him a cabinet position where he could make a difference...soooo...maybe. But still, I had you pegged as a Rudy man. :cwink:
Kritish
11-14-2007, 11:10 PM
Not gonna happen because Clinton has got the Democratic nomination sealed.
She's been shooting herself in the foot a lot lately. She's loosing her grip on the nomination.
Ron Paul has almost zero chance of winning.
Not gonna happen because Clinton has got the Democratic nomination sealed.
I still disagree. With Iowa being as close as it is (Clinton 24, Edwards 23, Obama 22) I say it is anyone's race and all it takes is Iowa to make you a real contender. Edwards or Obama take Iowa and we have a real election on our hands as opposed to a landslide. Hell, with Richardson at 12 percent if he puts on a strong grassroots campaign and gets the vote out, he could finish second or third and have the McCain effect and suddenly become a serious contender (though that is only my wet dream :csad:)
She's been shooting herself in the foot a lot lately. She's loosing her grip on the nomination.
Ron Paul has almost zero chance of winning.
The funny thing about Hillary is that she is like Claire from Heroes. She can get shot, stabbed, burned, whatever and still heal. Look at all the skeletons that are out in the open about Hillary. What effect have they had? I've never seen a candidate this impervious to scandal before.
Holly
11-14-2007, 11:14 PM
i'm tired of all this politics BS. im moving to Sweden
Kritish
11-14-2007, 11:15 PM
The funny thing about Hillary is that she is like Claire from Heroes. She can get shot, stabbed, burned, whatever and still heal. Look at all the skeletons that are out in the open about Hillary. What effect have they had? I've never seen a candidate this impervious to scandal before.
She's resilient, but no one's unstoppable. She can only get away with this **** for so long.
She's resilient, but no one's unstoppable. She can only get away with this **** for so long.
I think it is like Reagan. Late in his life (assuming he didn't get inflicted with his disease), Ronald Reagan probably could've said "Cruxify gays the way they did it in ancient Rome!" and every conservative would've hailed it as gospel. Bill Clinton has become the Democrat equivilant to Ronald Reagan. Both are held up on an unrealistic pedestal where the man that they were is nothing close to the myth they have become. Hilary is the wife of that myth. That makes her near unstoppable.
hippie_hunter
11-14-2007, 11:19 PM
Really? You're a Ron Paul supporter, H_H? I agree that he has a good plan, and is consistent...but I really think voting him is the equivilant to a third party vote. A waste. He can't win. Then again, enough support could land him a cabinet position where he could make a difference...soooo...maybe. But still, I had you pegged as a Rudy man. :cwink:
I originally supported Giuliani, but I switched my support for Paul. The nation needs a man like him. And he's become more of a dark horse candidate like Huckabee. So voting for him really isn't a waste like voting for Hunter or Tancredo.
Holly
11-14-2007, 11:20 PM
that makes her a wave riding butch lezbot spewing false promises.
I originally supported Giuliani, but I switched my support for Paul. The nation needs a man like him. And he's become more of a dark horse candidate like Huckabee. So voting for him really isn't a waste like voting for Hunter or Tancredo.
I don't really see him as a dark horse. I see him more as a candidate with a very vocal cult following. He is like The Rocky Horror Picture Show of the 2008 Presidential Election. And Sure, Rocky Horror has a lot of fans, but its never going to beat Titanic's box office record.
hippie_hunter
11-14-2007, 11:50 PM
I don't really see him as a dark horse. I see him more as a candidate with a very vocal cult following. He is like The Rocky Horror Picture Show of the 2008 Presidential Election. And Sure, Rocky Horror has a lot of fans, but its never going to beat Titanic's box office record.
When someone has the GOP fundraising record for one day and is beating frontrunner Thompson in New Hampshire and tied with frontrunner McCain in Iowa that says that he is more than just a cult following.
IMO his candidacy really depends on how he does in Iowa and New Hampshire, unlike the frontrunners who are going to depend more on Super Tuesday. He needs to get more aggressive in those two states to get his candidacy snowballing a bit more.
Lightning Strykez!
11-15-2007, 12:00 AM
Matt,
If memory recalls correctly, you and I discussed this candidate months ago. I seem to remember that you were in favor of him. What happened to change your mind (or did you always have this position on the subject)?
Holly
11-15-2007, 12:06 AM
Barack is hot. he has my vote, if i remember to register.
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 12:09 AM
Matt,
If memory recalls correctly, you and I discussed this candidate months ago. I seem to remember that you were in favor of him. What happened to change your mind (or did you always have this position on the subject)?
I always remember Matt complaining about Obama and supporting Richardson :huh:
MaskedManJRK
11-15-2007, 12:15 AM
Hence why I'm voting for Ron Paul. He's idealistic, and I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he goes into detail on how he's going to do it and he's consistent.
Same--don't agree with all of his policies, but he seems to be the only canidate that isn't choosing the lesser of two evils.
I think it is like Reagan. Late in his life (assuming he didn't get inflicted with his disease), Ronald Reagan probably could've said "Cruxify gays the way they did it in ancient Rome!" and every conservative would've hailed it as gospel. Bill Clinton has become the Democrat equivilant to Ronald Reagan. Both are held up on an unrealistic pedestal where the man that they were is nothing close to the myth they have become. Hilary is the wife of that myth. That makes her near unstoppable.
Eh, I disagree. I think JFK would be more of the Democrat's Reagan--a guy who really didn't do a lot of good for the country, but since they had something tragic happen to them (Reagan with his illness and JFK...well, you know why), no one will call them out for it. :o
However, if Clinton was assassinated or something, I'm sure he would be just as much a Regan as JFK.
Kritish
11-15-2007, 12:39 AM
Regan and JFK also sucked ass...
AndThePickles
11-15-2007, 12:47 AM
But I love you, Spoons, and Pickles....but only cause I want you guys to play on my basketball team :csad:
Lol wait, you think I'm black? hahaha
In terms of the article, this statement stuck out to me the most: He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time." :csad: Oh dear.
MaskedManJRK
11-15-2007, 12:55 AM
Regan and JFK also sucked ass...
...Yes. That's why I chose them. :huh:
Keep up with me here, dude, keep up with me. :o
:oldrazz:
raybia
11-15-2007, 01:20 AM
Until we clone Theodore Roosevelt my vote goes to Obama.
I would say Franklin Roosevelt.
MaskedManJRK
11-15-2007, 01:48 AM
I would say Franklin Roosevelt.
Franklin was a fairly good Pres.--did a lot of illegal things, but mostly to try to get the country back on it's feet after the Depression.
Teddy, though--complete and utter badass. You just can't deny. :up:
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 02:08 AM
Because I dislike Barack Obama hardly makes me a Republican. I am simply a Democrat who realizes that Barack Obama is hideously underqualified, contradicts himself on a daily basis, and really has no business being president of these United States. I vote based on candidate, not party and unlike many Obama and Hilary supporters not based on skin color or reproductive organs. If supporting Bill Richardson over two unqualified, insincere candidates makes me a Republican, I guess I am.
I give Matt until 6:01 pm of yesterday to get defensive.
unnecessarily so.
Nell2ThaIzzay
11-15-2007, 03:25 AM
Wrong, they live longer because of less stress and better medicine. Did you know that medical bills are the largest single cause of bankruptcy in America?
How is Michael Moore not credible? I'll trust him over fat cat doctors and Republicans telling us about the horrors of universal health care. :whatever:
michael moore is the least credible sob on the planet.
watch farenHYPE 9/11
Matt,
If memory recalls correctly, you and I discussed this candidate months ago. I seem to remember that you were in favor of him. What happened to change your mind (or did you always have this position on the subject)?
Nope, I've always rather disliked Obama. He is just so much hype and so little substance.
Lol wait, you think I'm black? hahaha
In terms of the article, this statement stuck out to me the most: He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time." :csad: Oh dear.
Ok Pickles, I don't see color. I see people. I'm color blind. :cmad: I could've sworn you said you were once :csad:
Eh, I disagree. I think JFK would be more of the Democrat's Reagan--a guy who really didn't do a lot of good for the country, but since they had something tragic happen to them (Reagan with his illness and JFK...well, you know why), no one will call them out for it. :o
However, if Clinton was assassinated or something, I'm sure he would be just as much a Regan as JFK.
I see your point and you are right. It was simply the best analogy that popped into my head. The point is, Clinton gets a lot of undeserved praise. He is almost seen by some Democrats as a mythical savior type figure. Much like Reagan to the Republicans.
AndThePickles
11-15-2007, 10:23 AM
Ok Pickles, I don't see color. I see people. I'm color blind. :cmad: I could've sworn you said you were once :csad:
Lol nope. I'm blonde, blue-eyed, and about as pale as they come haha.
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 10:47 AM
Lol nope. I'm blonde, blue-eyed, and about as pale as they come haha.
So you're Hitler's dream child :huh:
AndThePickles
11-15-2007, 10:49 AM
So you're Hitler's dream child :huh:
At first glance, but then he'd find out I'm dating a black man and he'd probably kill me for being a race traitor.
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 10:50 AM
At first glance, but then he'd find out I'm dating a black man and he'd probably kill me for being a race traitor.
:csad:
sinewave
11-15-2007, 11:07 AM
There's a difference between being an idealist, which is what this country really needs and being practical which is what Obama lacks.
He says he wants to impliment universal health care, but he doesn't go into detail how and with the way our budget is these days it's downright impossible to do it. We can't afford it.
He goes off to support something rather good like biofuels, but instead chooses crappy American corn ethanol instead of the far superior Brazilian sugar cane ethanol.
He says that he'll end the war in Iraq responsibly, building a 21st century military, help the enviroment, etc. but not go into enough detail how to impliment those ideals.
Hence why I'm voting for Ron Paul. He's idealistic, and I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he goes into detail on how he's going to do it and he's consistent.
cool. :up:
ron paul is the best candidate the republicans could offer. it's too bad he'll never get the party's nomination.
at least if you vote for him you'll take that vote away from the ****stains like giuliani, romney and thompson. try and talk more republicans into voting for him. we need a democrat in the white house more than ever.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 11:14 AM
michael moore is the least credible sob on the planet.
watch farenHYPE 9/11
LOL, yeah...that half credible and biased low budget documentary TOTALLY disproves Moore's more than half credible and biased documentary.
:o
Carcharodon
11-15-2007, 11:16 AM
Franklin was a fairly good Pres.--did a lot of illegal things, but mostly to try to get the country back on it's feet after the Depression.
Teddy, though--complete and utter badass. You just can't deny. :up:He was also a huge racist, which is weird, because I'm pretty sure he was the first person to appoint a black man as the head of a government agency/office. :huh:
All for the votes.
cool. :up:
ron paul is the best candidate the republicans could offer. it's too bad he'll never get the party's nomination.
at least if you vote for him you'll take that vote away from the ****stains like giuliani, romney and thompson. try and talk more republicans into voting for him. we need a democrat in the white house more than ever.
I actually like Romney. Not sure why. Know I shouldn't. But I do. I'm not sure I'd vote for him, but he doesn't bother me as much as other Republican candidates.
He was also a huge racist, which is weird, because I'm pretty sure he was the first person to appoint a black man as the head of a government agency/office. :huh:
All for the votes.
Its really not fair to look at racism from a historical perspective as it was pretty much the norm and no one knew better. You can't really condemn someone who was raised in the late 1800s for being racist.
Lol nope. I'm blonde, blue-eyed, and about as pale as they come haha.
In that case I'll save you for my hockey team. Maybe baseball...but only if I can't find a Latino :cwink:
sinewave
11-15-2007, 11:28 AM
I actually like Romney. Not sure why. Know I shouldn't. But I do. I'm not sure I'd vote for him, but he doesn't bother me as much as other Republican candidates.
probably because he's a clinton clone, only a hell of a lot less politically savvy.
Lackey
11-15-2007, 11:32 AM
I actually like Romney. Not sure why. Know I shouldn't. But I do. I'm not sure I'd vote for him, but he doesn't bother me as much as other Republican candidates.
NY6UTnS6Z-A
Carcharodon
11-15-2007, 11:33 AM
Its really not fair to look at racism from a historical perspective as it was pretty much the norm and no one knew better. You can't really condemn someone who was raised in the late 1800s for being racist.It's fair if you want the same man to govern today (an impossibility, I know, but it's a completely hypothetical situation).
MaskedManJRK
11-15-2007, 11:33 AM
He was also a huge racist, which is weird, because I'm pretty sure he was the first person to appoint a black man as the head of a government agency/office. :huh:
All for the votes.
I just checked on what you were talking about and, not to mention Matt's point of it being the norm, it isn't so much racist in that he said that taking out the Indian "savages," "horrible though many of [America's] deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people."
There's more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Roosevelt#Views_on_Race
Yeah, I know it's Wikipedia, but it sounds on the ball, and it'll probably link to the sources of the quotes and such.
EDIT: Found another good link: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/Civil%20Rights.htm#AfricanAmer
rdh007
11-15-2007, 11:34 AM
Maybe he'll be for medical marijuana today. Has anyone asked him today?
Carcharodon
11-15-2007, 11:37 AM
I just checked on what you were talking about and, not to mention Matt's point of it being the norm, it isn't so much racist in that he said that taking out the Indian "savages," "horrible though many of [America's] deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people."
There's more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Roosevelt#Views_on_Race
Yeah, I know it's Wikipedia, but it sounds on the ball, and it'll probably link to the sources of the quotes and such.
EDIT: Found another good link: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/Civil%20Rights.htm#AfricanAmerI never said his policies were racist, nor did he treat African Americans poorly.
Lackey
11-15-2007, 11:41 AM
I actually like Romney. Not sure why. Know I shouldn't. But I do. I'm not sure I'd vote for him, but he doesn't bother me as much as other Republican candidates.
I think you need to inform yourself about Romney, seriously.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 12:21 PM
Was I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought it would be another Cellslim rant?
Mate hates Obama with the searing, white heat of a thousand suns and can actually slip into Cellslim-speak over the subject. It's very scary. :p
As for Obama, he does sort of fall into the lesser of three evils from the Democratic perspective for many people. I haven't made up my mind about him, yet. He plays the political game, no doubt, but all of them do. And there isn't one Republican candidate that doesn't scare the hell out of me; they are all either incompetent idiots or power-hungry fascists who play to the conservative base. I like Richardson, but he'll never get elected. Hillary is as bad as all the Republican candidates quite frankly. That leaves it to Edwards (who I'm not sure is even electable) or Obama (who seems sincere in his intent to really turn things around, but doesn't seem overly sure on how to do it so it would depend on if he got the right cabinet and staff to help him map it all out properly or not) to impress me enough to get my vote. This country needs some serious help but we're once again engaged in a popularity contest rather than trying to pick the candidate who could really bring the most to the table. In a perfect world, we'd force Mark Warner into service as the President but of the current candidates Richardson is the most qualified and experienced. But, he's homely, overweight and Latino so his chances of getting elected lie somewhere between snowball fights in hell and Paris Hilton not being a ****.
The bottom line is people are tired of the sense of hopelessness that our current Administration has created. We're bogged down with a never-ending "war", have a ginormous deficit, unprecedented pandering to the upper, upper class with tax breaks and incentives that go so far as to turn the middle-class into a semi-disadvantaged one, major breaks in our health care system and more kowtowing to corporate interests than ever before. People are looking for a little sense of hope, and that's what the Democratic candidates seem to really be pandering towards more than anything else. The reality is that these issues are all incredibly complex ones that are going to take time, energy and think-tank levels of dedicated expertise from dedicated resources to solve. NONE of them can really stump on the campaign trail and describe how they're going to fix these issues because there is still a lot of research and feasibility studies that need to be done before a viable answer could be arrived at. I just wish ONE of these candidates would come out and say that instead of trying to play the part of the fearless leader who has all the answers when they clearly do not, even if they THINK they do (Hillary comes to mind where that practice is concerned).
jag
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 12:30 PM
I think you need to inform yourself about Romney, seriously.
Romney's a power-hungry, fascist douche. He and Giuliani are a lot alike only Romney's more righteous and hasn't been through several failed marriages.
jag
Comeon Jag, I'm never as bad as Celldog. :csad:
But yeah...a perfect world where we force Mark Warner into the presidency. *orgasims*
I honestly think his entire Senate run is just to keep himself in the national spot light for a few years. I really think Warner has this planned out brilliantly. If he ran for president in 2008, he would be a lower tier candidate as he has no name recognition and would get bowled over by Hilary, Obama, and Edwards (like all of the other candidates).
However, if he wins a senate seat and can get in the national spotlight, come 2012 if a Republican takes the presidency he can run against them. And lets face it, with the top three candidates, there is a good chance that a Republican will win. I honestly believe the only one of the big Republicans (Rudy, Thompson, and Romney) that Hilary can beat is Thompson and I don't think Edwards or Obama are electable at all. I think Warner realizes this and is planning to make his move in 2012. Imagine it...Warner/Richardson in 2012! I'm gonna go start a website :up:
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 12:40 PM
Comeon Jag, I'm never as bad as Celldog. :csad:
But yeah...a perfect world where we force Mark Warner into the presidency. *orgasims*
I honestly think his entire Senate run is just to keep himself in the national spot light for a few years. I really think Warner has this planned out brilliantly. If he ran for president in 2008, he would be a lower tier candidate as he has no name recognition and would get bowled over by Hilary, Obama, and Edwards (like all of the other candidates).
However, if he wins a senate seat and can get in the national spotlight, come 2012 if a Republican takes the presidency he can run against them. And lets face it, with the top three candidates, there is a good chance that a Republican will win. I honestly believe the only one of the big Republicans (Rudy, Thompson, and Romney) that Hilary can beat is Thompson and I don't think Edwards or Obama are electable at all. I think Warner realizes this and is planning to make his move in 2012. Imagine it...Warner/Richardson in 2012! I'm gonna go start a website :up:
I think you overestimate the electibility of Rudy and Romney, Mattdog. :oldrazz: Neither one of them will make it past the hardcore dirt-digging and mudslinging that will come up in the actual run to the election once both parties have chosen their candidate. And Thompson has pretty much mumbled and uninspired himself into being a non-factor in this election. The Republicans have no public goodwill left and no real viable candidate when all is said and done. Romney's the only one with enough actual experience and he's got too many ethical issues that come with him (though not as many as Rudy does). I hope you're right about Warner's plans, though. He would be a fantastic President someday if he chose to go for it.
jag
Carcharodon
11-15-2007, 12:41 PM
*orgasims*:huh: Organic SIMs?
I think you overestimate the electibility of Rudy and Romney, Mattdog. :oldrazz: Neither one of them will make it past the hardcore dirt-digging and mudslinging that will come up in the actual run to the election once both parties have chosen their candidate. And Thompson has pretty much mumbled and uninspired himself into being a non-factor in this election. The Republicans have no public goodwill left and no real viable candidate when all is said and done. Romney's the only one with enough actual experience and he's got too many ethical issues that come with him (though not as many as Rudy does). I hope you're right about Warner's plans, though. He would be a fantastic President someday if he chose to go for it.
jag
And I think you underestimate the power of the southern demographic when forced to decide between a woman or a black man, and someone they really don't like such as Rudy or Mitt.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 12:52 PM
And I think you underestimate the power of the southern demographic when forced to decide between a woman or a black man, and someone they really don't like such as Rudy or Mitt.
Here's the problem with the conservative southern demographic right now, though; they're fragmented all to hell. Rudy's a known adulterer, gay marriage supporter and pro-choice advocate. That's not going to fly with alot of those folks in the Bible Belt, no matter what their religious leaders and other spokespeople from their demographic might say. Romney is a Mormon, which immediately alienates him from that demographic, and he's waffled on the abortion rights thing quite a bit, supporting it in the past and now saying he's anti-abortion in a rather unconvincing way. So you've got a certain amount of people who won't vote for him either, no matter what their demographic leaders might tell them to do. It could result in the lowest voter turnout for that particular demographic in recent history. They're all in love with Thompson because he's as conservative as it gets, but there's no way he's getting the nomination over Rudy or Romney. The Republicans are so fragmented right now, with very little likelihood of smoothing that out before election time due to the complex issues at stake over it. The southern conservative demographic is just one microcosm of that fragmentation as it stands today. There's also the minority vote in this country, not a giant factor in previous elections, that seems to be getting stirred up for this election. Especially with Latinos who are feeling very encroached upon and attacked by this administration, with some deep-seated feelings of resentment towards Republicans. It might be enough to offset any traction the Republicans might manage to get in their usual voting strongholds which are, again, highly fragmented. This race is not going to play out status quo as far as voting demographics go.
jag
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 01:08 PM
Here's the problem with the conservative southern demographic right now, though; they're fragmented all to hell. Rudy's a known adulterer, gay marriage supporter and pro-choice advocate. That's not going to fly with alot of those folks in the Bible Belt, no matter what their religious leaders and other spokespeople from their demographic might say. Romney is a Mormon, which immediately alienates him from that demographic, and he's waffled on the abortion rights thing quite a bit, supporting it in the past and now saying he's anti-abortion in a rather unconvincing way. So you've got a certain amount of people who won't vote for him either, no matter what their demographic leaders might tell them to do. It could result in the lowest voter turnout for that particular demographic in recent history. They're all in love with Thompson because he's as conservative as it gets, but there's no way he's getting the nomination over Rudy or Romney. The Republicans are so fragmented right now, with very little likelihood of smoothing that out before election time due to the complex issues at stake over it. The southern conservative demographic is just one microcosm of that fragmentation as it stands today. There's also the minority vote in this country, not a giant factor in previous elections, that seems to be getting stirred up for this election. Especially with Latinos who are feeling very encroached upon and attacked by this administration, with some deep-seated feelings of resentment towards Republicans. It might be enough to offset any traction the Republicans might manage to get in their usual voting strongholds which are, again, highly fragmented. This race is not going to play out status quo as far as voting demographics go.
jag
The core Republican base will end up voting Republican no matter who gets the nomination. Even Giuliani and Romney. The Republican leadership will tell them that if they don't vote or put up an evangellical third party candidate, they'll be directly responsible for putting Hillary in the White House (which would be far worse than Rudy or Mitt in their eyes) and they'll most likely fall for it.
If Giuliani or Romney get the nomination, the evangellical vote will become just another union, African-American, pro-business, and military vote. A voting group that just simply gets taken advantage of because the overwhelming majority votes for one particular party instead of being independent competitive voting group like the hispanic and moderate vote.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 01:13 PM
The core Republican base will end up voting Republican no matter who gets the nomination. Even Giuliani and Romney. The Republican leadership will tell them that if they don't vote or put up an evangellical third party candidate, they'll be directly responsible for putting Hillary in the White House (which would be far worse than Rudy or Mitt in their eyes) and they'll most likely fall for it.
If Giuliani or Romney get the nomination, the evangellical vote will become just another union, African-American, pro-business, and military vote. A voting group that just simply gets taken advantage of because the overwhelming majority votes for one particular party instead of being independent competitive voting group like the hispanic and moderate vote.
I'm not so sure about that, Hippie. You'll always have a certain core base on either side of the political system that blindly votes for "their" party, but there's been so much that has changed since the last election or two. True conservatives are feeling horribly maligned by the current neo-con administration. They've had it with the party as it stands today and, frankly, none of the candidates but Thompson is anything close to a real conservative. So they're fragmented. The military vote, traditionally a very Republican voting stronghold, is feeling VERY maligned and wronged by the current Republicans. So their vote is in question. Even a lot of African-Americans are questioning the Republicans. Things are a lot more serious for them than I think most people realize where their core, traditional voter base is concerned. What you describe is sort of business as usual and I just don't think that's going to be the case for this election. I think we're going to see some real surprises and breaking from tradition.
jag
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 01:20 PM
I'm not so sure about that, Hippie. You'll always have a certain core base on either side of the political system that blindly votes for "their" party, but there's been so much that has changed since the last election or two. True conservatives are feeling horribly maligned by the current neo-con administration. They've had it with the party as it stands today and, frankly, none of the candidates but Thompson is anything close to a real conservative. So they're fragmented. The military vote, traditionally a very Republican voting stronghold, is feeling VERY maligned and wronged by the current Republicans. So their vote is in question. Even a lot of African-Americans are questioning the Republicans. Things are a lot more serious for them than I think most people realize where their core, traditional voter base is concerned. What you describe is sort of business as usual and I just don't think that's going to be the case for this election. I think we're going to see some real surprises and breaking from tradition.
jag
I never said that the African-American vote was a Republican vote. I was saying that they're a voting group that gets taken advantage of. The Republicans have the evangellicals, the pro-buisness, and military vote to take advantage of. The Democrats have the African-American and union vote. The only group that has the potential to become independent competive voters is the military vote for the very reason you stated.
Otherwise everything else is pretty much going to stay the same. The pro-business group will vote Republican as they always do. The evangellicals and conservatives will vote Republican simply because the Republican leadership will scare them into voting in their favor (Hillary Clinton). The African-Americans and unions will vote Democratic as they always do.
Once again the competitive voting groups, moderates, the Hispanics, and quite possibly the military will be the groups that determine who will win the Presidency and that will depend on who gets the nomination.
Arkady Rossovich
11-15-2007, 01:31 PM
Some say that Obama is using race as a card to get him votes by the Primaries.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 01:33 PM
There are A LOT of black voting Republicans. To the point that I've heard them referred to as a primarily Republican voting demographic before. They're probably more 50/50 than anything else. Still, I really don't agree with you that things will play out the way you're suggesting as far as the traditional voters go. I think it will be different this time out for the reasons I've already stated. But, yes, the more competitive voting groups will play an important role. I believe the number of folks who are willing to vote outside of party line in this election is going to be bigger than ever before, though. It will be an interesting one to watch.
jag
Carcharodon
11-15-2007, 01:34 PM
Some say that Obama is using race as a card to get him votes by the Primaries.http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x246/M0nkeyB0ne/AlBundyTheHellYouSay.jpg
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 01:40 PM
There are A LOT of black voting Republicans. To the point that I've heard them referred to as a primarily Republican voting demographic before. They're probably more 50/50 than anything else. Still, I really don't agree with you that things will play out the way you're suggesting as far as the traditional voters go. I think it will be different this time out for the reasons I've already stated. But, yes, the more competitive voting groups will play an important role. I believe the number of folks who are willing to vote outside of party line in this election is going to be bigger than ever before, though. It will be an interesting one to watch.
jag
Yeah, there are black Republican voters, but the overwhelming majority have been voting Democratic for quite sometime. Now the margin seems even bigger because most people are just quite frankly put off by Bush and Republicans for the most part ignore them.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 02:00 PM
Some say that Obama is using race as a card to get him votes by the Primaries.
This would make sense except for the fact that you're wrong and black people, by and large, are voting for Clinton.
sinewave
11-15-2007, 02:22 PM
Mate hates Obama with the searing, white heat of a thousand suns and can actually slip into Cellslim-speak over the subject. It's very scary. :p
As for Obama, he does sort of fall into the lesser of three evils from the Democratic perspective for many people. I haven't made up my mind about him, yet. He plays the political game, no doubt, but all of them do. And there isn't one Republican candidate that doesn't scare the hell out of me; they are all either incompetent idiots or power-hungry fascists who play to the conservative base. I like Richardson, but he'll never get elected. Hillary is as bad as all the Republican candidates quite frankly. That leaves it to Edwards (who I'm not sure is even electable) or Obama (who seems sincere in his intent to really turn things around, but doesn't seem overly sure on how to do it so it would depend on if he got the right cabinet and staff to help him map it all out properly or not) to impress me enough to get my vote. This country needs some serious help but we're once again engaged in a popularity contest rather than trying to pick the candidate who could really bring the most to the table. In a perfect world, we'd force Mark Warner into service as the President but of the current candidates Richardson is the most qualified and experienced. But, he's homely, overweight and Latino so his chances of getting elected lie somewhere between snowball fights in hell and Paris Hilton not being a ****.
The bottom line is people are tired of the sense of hopelessness that our current Administration has created. We're bogged down with a never-ending "war", have a ginormous deficit, unprecedented pandering to the upper, upper class with tax breaks and incentives that go so far as to turn the middle-class into a semi-disadvantaged one, major breaks in our health care system and more kowtowing to corporate interests than ever before. People are looking for a little sense of hope, and that's what the Democratic candidates seem to really be pandering towards more than anything else. The reality is that these issues are all incredibly complex ones that are going to take time, energy and think-tank levels of dedicated expertise from dedicated resources to solve. NONE of them can really stump on the campaign trail and describe how they're going to fix these issues because there is still a lot of research and feasibility studies that need to be done before a viable answer could be arrived at. I just wish ONE of these candidates would come out and say that instead of trying to play the part of the fearless leader who has all the answers when they clearly do not, even if they THINK they do (Hillary comes to mind where that practice is concerned).
jag
preach it, barruthah! it's creepy who much we think alike. :hyper:
Here's the problem with the conservative southern demographic right now, though; they're fragmented all to hell. Rudy's a known adulterer, gay marriage supporter and pro-choice advocate. That's not going to fly with alot of those folks in the Bible Belt, no matter what their religious leaders and other spokespeople from their demographic might say. Romney is a Mormon, which immediately alienates him from that demographic, and he's waffled on the abortion rights thing quite a bit, supporting it in the past and now saying he's anti-abortion in a rather unconvincing way. So you've got a certain amount of people who won't vote for him either, no matter what their demographic leaders might tell them to do. It could result in the lowest voter turnout for that particular demographic in recent history. They're all in love with Thompson because he's as conservative as it gets, but there's no way he's getting the nomination over Rudy or Romney. The Republicans are so fragmented right now, with very little likelihood of smoothing that out before election time due to the complex issues at stake over it. The southern conservative demographic is just one microcosm of that fragmentation as it stands today. There's also the minority vote in this country, not a giant factor in previous elections, that seems to be getting stirred up for this election. Especially with Latinos who are feeling very encroached upon and attacked by this administration, with some deep-seated feelings of resentment towards Republicans. It might be enough to offset any traction the Republicans might manage to get in their usual voting strongholds which are, again, highly fragmented. This race is not going to play out status quo as far as voting demographics go.
jag
The core Republican base will end up voting Republican no matter who gets the nomination. Even Giuliani and Romney. The Republican leadership will tell them that if they don't vote or put up an evangellical third party candidate, they'll be directly responsible for putting Hillary in the White House (which would be far worse than Rudy or Mitt in their eyes) and they'll most likely fall for it.
If Giuliani or Romney get the nomination, the evangellical vote will become just another union, African-American, pro-business, and military vote. A voting group that just simply gets taken advantage of because the overwhelming majority votes for one particular party instead of being independent competitive voting group like the hispanic and moderate vote.
the whole thing with the ultra-conservative evangelical voters is making sure a republican wins the presidency, ANY republican. the reason is because there's a chance that the next president will get the opportunity to choose up to three more supreme court judges, and with the last two they chose they're getting close to having enough of a conservative bias to overturn roe v. wade and adding 2-3 more would be a lock. that's basically their top issue. it's more important to them than the war, healthcare, immigration, education, terrorism, whatever. if they can get the supreme court overloaded with conservative ideologues, they're on easy street for the next 10+ years and will finally see their dream of saving all those babies come to fruition. i think that's why dobson bit the bullet and threw his support behind rudy, who he sees as having the best chance to win.
MaskedManJRK
11-15-2007, 03:23 PM
Some say that Obama is using race as a card to get him votes by the Primaries.
I haven't really heard him use race--but, I do remember Hilary blaming her bad performance in the last debate on sexism. :o
the whole thing with the ultra-conservative evangelical voters is making sure a republican wins the presidency, ANY republican. the reason is because there's a chance that the next president will get the opportunity to choose up to three more supreme court judges, and with the last two they chose they're getting close to having enough of a conservative bias to overturn roe v. wade and adding 2-3 more would be a lock. that's basically their top issue. it's more important to them than the war, healthcare, immigration, education, terrorism, whatever. if they can get the supreme court overloaded with conservative ideologues, they're on easy street for the next 10+ years and will finally see their dream of saving all those babies come to fruition. i think that's why dobson bit the bullet and threw his support behind rudy, who he sees as having the best chance to win.
Honestly, I doubt that any Republican will adamently try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade? Why? Because they like the issue. It's helps get people to vote for them, and there will still be a hell of a lot of Democrats who will screech until the cows come home against it.
Chris B
11-15-2007, 03:35 PM
That leaves it to Edwards (who I'm not sure is even electable)
jag
I would have to disgree. Every Democrat who has been elected President within that last 40 years has been from the South, and of course Edwards has those Southern roots.
But I agree that Mark Warner would be the kind of President the country needs right now, so I hope he makes it to the White House one day.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 03:41 PM
I would have to disgree. Every Democrat who has been elected President within that last 40 years has been from the South, and of course Edwards has those Southern roots.
But I agree that Mark Warner would be the kind of President the country needs right now, so I hope he makes it to the White House one day.
He's trying hard to break the perception people have of him, but there is something very plain about Edwards. Especially since he's the traditional "white guy" in the mix, trying to keep up with the diversity that Obama and Hillary bring to the table that's somewhat unique to the whole Presidential race this time out and is therefore attracting a lot of attention.
jag
Chris B
11-15-2007, 03:45 PM
Especially since he's the traditional "white guy" in the mix, trying to keep up with the diversity that Obama and Hillary bring to the table that's somewhat unique to the whole Presidential race this time out and is therefore attracting a lot of attention.
jag
That is why if he wins the nomination, he'll end up going with a woman or minority to be his running mate. I think an Edwards/Richardson ticket would be the Democrats' strongest ticket come '08.
sinewave
11-15-2007, 03:50 PM
Honestly, I doubt that any Republican will adamently try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade? Why? Because they like the issue. It's helps get people to vote for them, and there will still be a hell of a lot of Democrats who will screech until the cows come home against it.
no, i said the far-right evangelicals want to do that. whether the party as a whole does, i'm not sure, but they have been talking about it for a while. it could be something of a wedge issue for them, though, as you say.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 03:51 PM
That is why if he wins the nomination, he'll end up going with a woman or minority to be his running mate. I think an Edwards/Richardson ticket would be the Democrats' strongest ticket come '08.
He better start talking circles around Hillary and Obama, then. The polls show the story; he's playing third banana to the both of them.
jag
Not so, Jag. In Iowa he is 2nd, above Obama.
Kritish
11-15-2007, 03:55 PM
Some say that Obama is using race as a card to get him votes by the Primaries.
You're an idiot, blacks for the most part siding with Hilary due to their warm and fuzzy memories of her husband.
rdh007
11-15-2007, 04:01 PM
That is why if he wins the nomination, he'll end up going with a woman or minority to be his running mate. I think an Edwards/Richardson ticket would be the Democrats' strongest ticket come '08.I'd vote for that.
Also, Kucinich pimps like this:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/kucinich.jpg
Why can't he get votes, too?
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 04:07 PM
Not so, Jag. In Iowa he is 2nd, above Obama.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16710815/
jag
rdh007
11-15-2007, 04:13 PM
^That isn't polling specific to Iowa. That I can see.
I'd vote for that.
Also, Kucinich pimps like this:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/kucinich.jpg
Why can't he get votes, too?
Am I crazy or does that defy the laws of nature? :csad:
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 04:16 PM
^That isn't polling specific to Iowa. That I can see.
I never said anything about Iowa. CellMatt did. I was just talking about general rankings in the Democratic primaries as a whole, not just Iowa.
jag
Chris B
11-15-2007, 04:19 PM
He better start talking circles around Hillary and Obama, then. The polls show the story; he's playing third banana to the both of them.
jag
He has performed better than either Hillary and Obama in the recent debates, and the consensus is that he won the last one.
Chris B
11-15-2007, 04:23 PM
I'd vote for that.
I think it would carry all of the same states that Kerry/Edwards did in '04, with the addition of a few Southern and Western swinging into the Democratic column.
I never said anything about Iowa. CellMatt did. I was just talking about general rankings in the Democratic primaries as a whole, not just Iowa.
jag
But everyone knows how things can snowball after a win in Iowa.
But I don't think CellMatt is fair because I am very tempted to vote Kucinich (the most liberal candidate right now) simply to have a hot first lady :up:
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 04:25 PM
He has performed better than either Hillary and Obama in the recent debates, and the consensus is that he won the last one.
Hopefully it's the start of an upturn for him. Hillary scares the hell out of me and Obama may indeed be too green for the job just yet, as many have expressed concerns about. There's not a whole lot of time left before each party is going to have to pick their candidates and then their running mates so that the serious campaigning against the other party can start happening before the elections. I don't know if Edwards has done enough thus far, or can do enough in the short period left, to garner the nomination nod for himself.
jag
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 04:25 PM
But everyone knows how things can snowball after a win in Iowa.
But I don't think CellMatt is fair because I am very tempted to vote Kucinich (the most liberal candidate right now) simply to have a hot first lady :up:
How about MattSlim? :D
jag
sinewave
11-15-2007, 04:26 PM
But everyone knows how things can snowball after a win in Iowa.
But I don't think CellMatt is fair because I am very tempted to vote Kucinich (the most liberal candidate right now) simply to have a hot first lady :up:
hot and intelligent. what other first lady-in-waiting can boast a masters degree in international conflict resolution?
Mr. Wooden Alligator
11-15-2007, 04:28 PM
Mattdog :up:
---Morzan
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 04:28 PM
Kucinich must not only bleed $1000 bills, but he HAS to be hung like a mule, too. That's all I can make of it.
jag
rdh007
11-15-2007, 04:48 PM
I never said anything about Iowa. CellMatt did. I was just talking about general rankings in the Democratic primaries as a whole, not just Iowa.
jag
Oh, my bad. I'll mind my own business now.
rdh007
11-15-2007, 04:49 PM
I think it would carry all of the same states that Kerry/Edwards did in '04, with the addition of a few Southern and Western swinging into the Democratic column.
I think you might have a better shot at Arizona or Florida, but I don't think they'd win those in the end.
How about MattSlim? :D
jag
I guess that works :csad:
I suppose I should start playing the role
http://www.whatisdeepfried.com/MEDIA/captain_america.gif
Kucinich must not only bleed $1000 bills, but he HAS to be hung like a mule, too. That's all I can make of it.
jag
Maybe she has a penis. :huh:
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 04:52 PM
I guess that works :csad:
I suppose I should start playing the role
http://www.whatisdeepfried.com/MEDIA/captain_america.gif
LMAO! Best laugh I've had all day. :D :up:
jag
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 04:52 PM
Maybe she has a penis. :huh:
It's just a strap-on. Settle down.
jag
Excel
11-15-2007, 05:08 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/26/071126fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=1
barrack may contradict himself on some things; but it happens due to how specific he is on most issues.
gkokujin
11-15-2007, 06:23 PM
I'd argue that being a governor is the only suitable qualification as it is experience in the executive branch. Being a governor is pretty much the equivilant to being being the president of a state.
I'd certainly argue that 3 years in national politics is not enough.
Based on your privledged comment, I will ask you this:
Is it really wise to vote on someone simply because they are not white?
sorry for the delayed response. i can no longer use the internet from work :(
in regards to the latter comment, um, my statement about the privilege had nothing to do with my decision of who I am voting for.
If Leroy Jenkins from Tupelo Mississippi decided to run for president, and he wasn't saying anything that made sense NOR was he been seen doing anything or etc... I would not vote for him.
My vote is for Obama because i like what he stands for.
If his name was Kip Smith, I would still vote for him.
don't assume that just because I am black I am voting for him because he is black. thats a BAD thing to assume...even if it looks like it. :)
StorminNorman
11-15-2007, 06:43 PM
Bush had a luxury Barack Obama does not. Karl Rove, who like him or hate him is pretty much the greatest campaign mind of this generation (matched only by Bill Clinton, and that is iffy).
I would argue this until I am blue in the face - I have the privilege of knowing many people who worked with Rove, my father being one of the men that taught Rove the tools of the trade and regularly receives emails from him.
Amongst the old guard in the GOP, he is considered an overrated, idiotic ass.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 06:56 PM
I'd vote for that.
Also, Kucinich pimps like this:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/kucinich.jpg
Why can't he get votes, too?
Why. Because he's about two more batf*** crazy remarks away from being the next Mike Gravel.
StorminNorman
11-15-2007, 07:04 PM
That bow tie is damn sexy.
The one positive outcome I could see from a President Obama (and the reason I would vote for him over every Republican BUT Rudy and Huckabee) is that he symbolizes change in Washington. Thats the reason he is hot.
I am not saying he IS any different than any other political player in Washington - in fact he could be more manipulative and trapped by the way Washington works than Hillary and it wouldn't matter, perception is reality.
Obama winning the Presidentcy - I believe - would shake the Republican party to its core.
My only fear is that if Obama beats Rudy, or even an Romney - the Republican party will look at it and convince themselves they need to step back into their Conservative roots. Obama defeating someone like Fred Thompson would hopefully bring an enlightenment amongst the GOP.
That being said - if Obama did win, I will undoubtedly be upset by most of his policy moves (such as National Health Care).
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 07:24 PM
Some say that Obama is using race as a card to get him votes by the Primaries.
man, do you just skulk around to state the obvious?
I mean, I itch for a thread on volcanoes so that you can just pop in and say something like "some say that molten rock under the earth is called magma"
:whatever:
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 07:26 PM
Why. Because he's about two more batf*** crazy remarks away from being the next Mike Gravel.
yeah, that whole UFO thing is Crazy.
I mean, no one but a few people can claim to have ever seen UFO's
that whole UFO thing is COMPLETELY unverified.
unlike God, when Presidential candidates say that they believe in God we at least KNOW that they are sane right?
right?
anyone?:huh:
sorry for the delayed response. i can no longer use the internet from work :(
in regards to the latter comment, um, my statement about the privilege had nothing to do with my decision of who I am voting for.
If Leroy Jenkins from Tupelo Mississippi decided to run for president, and he wasn't saying anything that made sense NOR was he been seen doing anything or etc... I would not vote for him.
My vote is for Obama because i like what he stands for.
If his name was Kip Smith, I would still vote for him.
don't assume that just because I am black I am voting for him because he is black. thats a BAD thing to assume...even if it looks like it. :)
How does one assume based on you being black when I can see nothing but your font? :huh: I assumed based on your very vague comment you did not elaborate on.
As for Obama...what does he stand for? He has no platform, thats my problem with him. And I'm not being sarcastic, I am just enjoying this dialogue :yay:
I would argue this until I am blue in the face - I have the privilege of knowing many people who worked with Rove, my father being one of the men that taught Rove the tools of the trade and regularly receives emails from him.
Amongst the old guard in the GOP, he is considered an overrated, idiotic ass.
Really? Well, I've never worked with him or anything...but you cannot deny, he produces results.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 07:37 PM
I'd vote for that.
Also, Kucinich pimps like this:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/kucinich.jpg
Why can't he get votes, too?
people, people!
Look at the man's wife, then look at him.
he's gotta be doing something right.
vote Kucinich.
( or however you spell it)
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 07:43 PM
yeah, that whole UFO thing is Crazy.
I mean, no one but a few people can claim to have ever seen UFO's
that whole UFO thing is COMPLETELY unverified.
The UFO thing is a little weird. I think the "I'm going to pay for everyone to go to college thing" in addition to all the other policies that will cost the Government an obscene amount of money is really what makes me think he's batf*** insane.
StorminNorman
11-15-2007, 07:45 PM
Really? Well, I've never worked with him or anything...but you cannot deny, he produces results.
That he does, but his place with the Bush White House comes more from his history with the family than sheer political genius.
His greatest ability is to get people to the polls which is very powerful - but he is hardly the best.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 07:48 PM
The UFO thing is a little weird. I think the "I'm going to pay for everyone to go to college thing" in addition to all the other policies that will cost the Government an obscene amount of money is really what makes me think he's batf*** insane.
well, I personally think that the "paying for college" thing CAN be done.
I paid about 20 dlls a semester when I started the last semester ( architecture is a 5 year study plan over here) I paid like a 100 dlls a semester.
the quality was pretty good, I can pretty much go toe to toe with any US architect.
so, I'm thinking it's doable, maybe he has a plan.:huh:
people won't vote for him cux he is an ugly vegan though.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 07:53 PM
well, I personally think that the "paying for college" thing CAN be done.
Your right, incidentally. It CAN be done...by taxing the living daylights out of people. Not that I mind high taxes (not that I'm going to have much of a choice soon), but I do mind Kucinich high taxes (especially considering he wants reparations and to socialize a whole bunch of other major programs as well).
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 07:56 PM
that however is NOT the only way of doing it.
don't cut off the argument with a rather glib assessment.
and please stop saying "socialize" it's obnoxious.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 07:57 PM
that however is NOT the only way of doing it.
don't cut off the argument with a rather glib assessment.
and please stop saying "socialize" it's obnoxious.
Well I'll stop saying it when Kucinich stops saying it.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 07:59 PM
He's not on the message board though. :o
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 08:04 PM
This isn't like when conservatives call Obama, Edwards or Clinton socialists. Kucinich actually supports "socialized" programs. Hell, he's like the posterboy over at the International Socialist Review -- they love him.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 08:08 PM
filthy commie :cmad:
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 08:09 PM
Now that's what the people over at Fox News called him. :o
no, seriously. Their also fond of that label over at Thinkprogress.org.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 08:13 PM
man I just hate it, because it evokes "socialism" and it's a bad word in the US, so good ideas and programs like "socialized" medicine, get booted because people still think the reds are after their precious capitalist system.
Excel
11-15-2007, 08:15 PM
Am I the only who doesnt think theres anything really wrong with the U.S? We have some kinks to work out, but I dont see any huge need for major changes; in any aspect of our lives.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 08:15 PM
Socialism doesn't work too well, IMO. They've gotten it to work in small communities and over short periods of time, but on a nationwide scale, it usually fails miserably.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 08:16 PM
Am I the only who doesnt think theres anything really wrong with the U.S? We have some kinks to work out, but I dont see any huge need for major changes; in any aspect of our lives.
no, complacency is pretty wide spread everywhere in the world.
so, no, you're not the only one.
Mr Sparkle
11-15-2007, 08:18 PM
Socialism doesn't work too well, IMO. They've gotten it to work in small communities and over short periods of time, but on a nationwide scale, it usually fails miserably.
I agree.
government sponsored or government managed programs don't automatically spell socialism though.
and a small correction.
the studies showed that socialism would work in small communities. rural mostly because of the SIZE so it works perfectly, it's just not an adequate system for a large industrial society.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 08:21 PM
Right, I'm not disagreeing with you there. We've had local level politicians run on socialist platforms and do quite well in their respective districts, counties, towns, whathaveyou.
xisaacx
11-15-2007, 08:43 PM
hes the man
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 08:53 PM
Damn, Obama just pwn3d Hillary.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 09:05 PM
Damn, Obama just pwn3d Hillary.
What happened? Details, dammit! :cmad:
jag
Excel
11-15-2007, 09:05 PM
missed it; what happened
hippie_hunter
11-15-2007, 09:17 PM
What happened? Details, dammit! :cmad:
jag
Basically he told her that 6% population that made a certain amount (I forget in particular) was indeed upper class, and a tax increase is justified on them which she voted against.
Although frankly, I have to agree the CNN analysis, Clinton overall did better than Obama asides from that one moment of ownage. In my opinion the best debaters were Richardson and Biden.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 09:21 PM
Clinton, IMO, seemed to be the winner of that debate. I think she did especially well on the last question (no, not the 'diamonds and pearls' one, the uniting one).
Excel
11-15-2007, 09:22 PM
I disagree; the crowd liked some of her answers however was there any substance? How many voters care that Hilarys running for a reason other than being a woman?
She reiterated something we already knew and it got applause from women in the crowd; wow :rolleyes:
The crowd was sympathetic and played to her; but i didnt hear anything outta her that makes me want to vote for her.
i dont think she or obama shined; though obama did stick the topics; Biden impressed the most. Richardsons ideas seem so unrealistic (16 years of a school?) that you gotta roll your eyes.
Arkady Rossovich
11-15-2007, 09:25 PM
man I just hate it, because it evokes "socialism" and it's a bad word in the US, so good ideas and programs like "socialized" medicine, get booted because people still think the reds are after their precious capitalist system.
It goes to show how much America feared the Soviets.After all,if they did things right..i would think they would be 2x as strong as America was.Lobbists and corruption keeps America from having a free health care system.
But to keep things on topic,i don't think Obama will be the Democratic choice for the Presidency.
ShadowBoxing
11-15-2007, 09:26 PM
I disagree; the crowd liked some of her answers however was there any substance? How many voters care that Hilarys running for a reason other than being a woman?
Yeah, actually there was. For example, in the uniting question she very adeptly pointed out that she had been successful in the Senate at allying herself with Republicans on bills and legislation...which she has. There was no substance to Biden's blanket assumption that Republicans would just fall in line the minute he ended the war.
jaguarr
11-15-2007, 09:31 PM
It goes to show how much America feared the Soviets.After all,if they did things right..i would think they would be 2x as strong as America was.Lobbists and corruption keeps America from having a free health care system.
But to keep things on topic,i don't think Obama will be the Democratic choice for the Presidency.
Errr....the Soviets sort of had a ginormous problem with corruption in their public officials and leaders.
jag
Excel
11-15-2007, 09:33 PM
Totally honest; thats not substance to me. She has trouble allying herself with people in own party dude; what Edwards says is personal wether he says it or not it's meant to hurt because shes in the lead and ihonestly its true; Barrack was kind of smart in that he laid off and allowed Edwards to just about all the talking so when Hilary shot back; it was only at him. Fact is; all these people have worked other party.
Richardson and Obama by far talked about what they would do with issues.
That said; the crowd was with everybody; even Kunicinch*** got applause and laughs ::dry:
Btw im thinking of going to the next debate so if someone asks hilary what she prefers, diamonds or pearls; ill ask barrack what he prefers-
tmacs or air jordans http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/images/smilies/think.gif http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/images/smilies/think.gif http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/images/smilies/think.gif http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/images/smilies/think.gif http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/images/smilies/think.gif
rdh007
11-15-2007, 10:08 PM
Biden FTW!
He'll make a very charismatic VP candidate.
Lackey
11-16-2007, 10:03 AM
http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2007/harkin_steak_fry/harkin_steak_fry_08.jpg
Oh noes! :eek:
rdh007
11-16-2007, 10:18 AM
Do we have to put our hands on our hearts during the pledge of allegiance? Is that a must? I seriously don't know.
If they're singing the anthem, I never put my hand over my heart. And noone loves this country more than me.
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/colbert1.jpg
No. One.
jaguarr
11-16-2007, 10:20 AM
Do we have to put our hands on our hearts during the pledge of allegiance? Is that a must? I seriously don't know.
Going by that picture, apparently Barack cups his balls when he hears the national anthem. Maybe he had a really bad experience as a child and it's a defensive response that he can't help? :huh:
jag
rdh007
11-16-2007, 10:21 AM
apparently Barack cups his balls when he hears the national anthem.
What does that say about how much he loves his country? More than anyone except me.
Mr Sparkle
11-16-2007, 10:21 AM
Oh noes!
that giant flag will kill them all! turn around! turn around!!!!!
jaguarr
11-16-2007, 10:26 AM
What does that say about how much he loves his country? More than anyone except me.
It could mean that he has a strong urge to masturbate when he hears the "Star Spangled Banner", thereby reaching a level of erotic love for this country that is surpassed only by yourself. :up:
jag
ShadowBoxing
11-16-2007, 10:40 AM
I know it's customary to place your right hand on your heart during the Pledge, I don't know if their are any rules regarding the National Anthem aside from removing one's hat.
rdh007
11-16-2007, 11:20 AM
It could mean that he has a strong urge to masturbate when he hears the "Star Spangled Banner", thereby reaching a level of erotic love for this country that is surpassed only by yourself. :up:
jag
How can we support anyone else?
Lackey
11-16-2007, 11:48 AM
I know it's customary to place your right hand on your heart during the Pledge, I don't know if their are any rules regarding the National Anthem aside from removing one's hat.
yup, the rule is to place your hand over your heart
http://www.slate.com/id/2177887/?GT1=10636
I don't really care that he didn't do it, I just think it's funny how the media plays up things like this regarding the presidential candidates.
StorminNorman
11-16-2007, 12:34 PM
Quite honestly its stupid for him not to do it.
I am not going to begin to argue that his lack of placing his right hand over his heart shows him to have less patriotism than the others - thats just stupid.
However in elections, little stupid things get escalated big time. He should know better than that.
Mr Sparkle
11-16-2007, 12:37 PM
He should know better than that.
no.
WE should know better than that.
you are asking him to coddle the public.
it's not up to him to lower his intellectual level so some idiot can relate to him.
it's up to the general public to evolve beyond this trite bull****.
StorminNorman
11-16-2007, 12:49 PM
no.
WE should know better than that.
you are asking him to coddle the public.
it's not up to him to lower his intellectual level so some idiot can relate to him.
it's up to the general public to evolve beyond this trite bull****.
Whether its bull**** or not, its the game politics is now. Its a small hoop to jump through that does nothing to demean or hurt his credibility or intelligence or anything. Plus its a sign of Patriotism no matter what the circumstances are.
For him to NOT to do it is him intentionally going out of his way to create controversy that hurts his campaign - especially after his being criticized for not wearing a flag pin and other similar trivial mishaps.
jaguarr
11-16-2007, 12:55 PM
Idealistically speaking, I agree with you completely, Sparkle. But you give people way too much credit. Most of them are idiots. Norman's perspective is more the reality in this instance.
jag
Mr Sparkle
11-16-2007, 12:58 PM
:( ....
jaguarr
11-16-2007, 01:03 PM
Don't you frown at me, mister, or I'll send you to live in Mexico! :cmad: Oh...wait....
jag
Mr Sparkle
11-16-2007, 01:05 PM
Mexico rocks! it's such a dank pit of despair that only good things can happen now.
right?
right?
jaguarr
11-16-2007, 01:07 PM
Hey, at least you can catch a donkey show at any odd hour of the day or night. :up:
jag
Excel
11-16-2007, 02:03 PM
eh i dunno; i dont think anything changed from the debate. Had Obama "won" and Hilary kept falling it was an oppritunity for Obama to realllly get some momentum after his speech coupled with Hilary "slipping".
It didnt happen, so nothing really changed.
Lackey
11-16-2007, 02:04 PM
Hey, at least you can catch a donkey show at any odd hour of the day or night. :up:
jag
What? Really?!
and here I am living in the U.S. like a dummy :(
MaskedManJRK
11-20-2007, 02:23 PM
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/20/1110617-obama-i-tried-drugs-as-a-teen?threadId=178795&cmt=1202687#c1202687
Eh. Didn't really change my opinion on the guy and I'm still unsure of him as President, but at least he can admit he did it, unlike some other Presidents I can name...:o
Darthphere
11-20-2007, 02:24 PM
Bill Clinton was probably the most honest President in history. And I'm being 100% serious when I say that.
M.E.H.Z.E.B
11-20-2007, 02:24 PM
Hmm. Interesting...
mrsparkle
11-20-2007, 02:26 PM
Who didnt?
JackRembrandt
11-20-2007, 02:29 PM
I can respect the man more for admitting to cocaine use. I mean, to say that that disqualifies him from a leadership role is ludicrous. Bush was a cokehead. At least Obama admits his past drug use.
terry78
11-20-2007, 02:30 PM
Who didnt?
Some people didn't.
The Dark Guybrush
11-20-2007, 02:30 PM
who cares?
Carcharodon
11-20-2007, 02:31 PM
Isn't this old news? I mean, I already knew he'd done drugs in the past; he's been very open about it. I haven't even been following his story that closely. :huh:
MaskedManJRK
11-20-2007, 02:31 PM
Bill Clinton was probably the most honest President in history. And I'm being 100% serious when I say that.
"Bill Clinton smoked marijuana but didn't inhale? Right. Like I chew on LSD but I don't swallow it."
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Warhammer
11-20-2007, 02:31 PM
Nothing controversial. I bet a good sum of politicians have tried drugs, too.
jaguarr
11-20-2007, 02:31 PM
It's a non-issue other than the fact that he's being honest about it, which is rare for a politician.
jag
mrsparkle
11-20-2007, 02:32 PM
Some people didn't.
Yeah But those people still live with their mom at 52.
JackRembrandt
11-20-2007, 02:34 PM
It's a non-issue other than the fact that he's being honest about it, which is rare for a politician.
jag
Agreed.
Ghostvirus
11-20-2007, 02:36 PM
Sh**. Find me someone below the age of 50 that didn't try some sh** in their youth.
Sh**. Find me someone below the age of 50 that didn't try some sh** in their youth.
*raises hand*
M.E.H.Z.E.B
11-20-2007, 02:39 PM
Who didnt?
Probably more than 3/4 of the world's population.
Some people didn't.
I'm glad to be one of those people.
who cares?
Good point. No actually does.
Yeah But those people still live with their mom at 52.
No offence, but drugs are for morons who don't know the value of life. If someone needs controlled substances to make them feel good, then they obviously don't have any idea of what art, theatre, music, fine dining, and women, are.
:hyper:
amazingfantasy15
11-20-2007, 02:39 PM
It's a non-issue other than the fact that he's being honest about it, which is rare for a politician.
jag
Being honest about it should disqualify him, I don't want an honest politician!
The Dark Guybrush
11-20-2007, 02:41 PM
lol @ fine dining
M.E.H.Z.E.B
11-20-2007, 02:42 PM
Being honest about it should disqualify him, I don't want an honest politician!
Agreed. It's like living in a world where lawyers are incapable of lying.
amazingfantasy15
11-20-2007, 02:42 PM
No offence, but drugs are for morons who don't know the value of life. If someone needs controlled substances to make them feel good, then they obviously don't have any idea of what art, theatre, music, fine dining, and women, are.
:hyper:
I know what all those things are, still enjoyed trying drugs in my past. Try looking past the sterotype the media tries to sell you on drugs, you ever had an alcohol drink? Caffiene? Anything that changes your mood in any way? Those are drugs too, just socialy acceptable drugs.
Ghostvirus
11-20-2007, 02:44 PM
*raises hand*
Well if you are still young. Get out there & do some Blow, Crank, Pot, H, Whip-its, Ludes, Vike, X, & even caffiene:o. NOW!:cmad:
Wilhelm-Scream
11-20-2007, 02:45 PM
Bill Clinton was probably the most honest President in history. And I'm being 100% serious when I say that.On Bizarro World
Jimmy Carter was the most honest.
C.F. Kane
11-20-2007, 02:46 PM
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/20/1110617-obama-i-tried-drugs-as-a-teen?threadId=178795&cmt=1202687#c1202687
Eh. Didn't really change my opinion on the guy and I'm still unsure of him as President, but at least he can admit he did it, unlike some other Presidents I can name...:o
Will be a big deal. Should not be a big deal.
M.E.H.Z.E.B
11-20-2007, 02:50 PM
I know what all those things are, still enjoyed trying drugs in my past. Try looking past the sterotype the media tries to sell you on drugs, you ever had an alcohol drink? Caffiene? Anything that changes your mood in any way? Those are drugs too, just socialy acceptable drugs.
Law, morality, and social acceptability. These three are interconnected. Society's perception of appropriateness is our guiding signal to what's right and wrong. Arguing against social norms, and starting a crusade to bring drugs on the same par as alcohol have been tried in the past. The 70s come to mind. And comparing Caffeine to say, marijuana is as absurd as comparing hydrochloric acid and fresh mountain water, simply on the basis that they're both in liquid form. Drugs are deadly addictive, and ruin lives. Caffeine is addictive, yes, but people don't rob stores, and kill people for caffeine.
Darthphere
11-20-2007, 02:59 PM
On Bizarro World
Jimmy Carter was the most honest.
As a Nicaraguan, all I have to say is, **** Jimmy Carter.:cmad:
turtlefocker
11-20-2007, 03:05 PM
Obama: Tells the Truth, loses election
Liars win. Always
M.E.H.Z.E.B
11-20-2007, 03:06 PM
Obama: Tells the Truth, loses election
Liars win. Always
Fact of life.
Arkady Rossovich
11-20-2007, 03:26 PM
Honesty is good,but for someone like Obama..that could be bad.
raybia
11-20-2007, 03:52 PM
On Bizarro World
Jimmy Carter was the most honest.
Agree. That is why he only lasted one term.
"Obama: 'I tried drugs as a teen."
WOW:wow: What a surprise.
As a Nicaraguan, all I have to say is, **** Jimmy Carter.:cmad:
Thank you for saying so.
ShadowBoxing
11-20-2007, 04:01 PM
Law, morality, and social acceptability. These three are interconnected. Society's perception of appropriateness is our guiding signal to what's right and wrong. Arguing against social norms, and starting a crusade to bring drugs on the same par as alcohol have been tried in the past. The 70s come to mind. And comparing Caffeine to say, marijuana is as absurd as comparing hydrochloric acid and fresh mountain water, simply on the basis that they're both in liquid form. Drugs are deadly addictive, and ruin lives. Caffeine is addictive, yes, but people don't rob stores, and kill people for caffeine.
Laws and morality are hardly interconnected (all the time). Many, many laws that govern this nation are simply in place for political reasons. Drug laws are a great example of this.
raybia
11-20-2007, 04:04 PM
As a Nicaraguan, all I have to say is, **** Jimmy Carter.:cmad:
I know what you are referring to. Read it in one of Noam Chomsky's books. Chomsky I believe say that every President since FDR could be charged as a War
Criminal.
They made an example out of Nicaragua for any and all so called third world countries that have the audacity to become a democracy.
But Carter was the most honest of the Presidental war criminals.
WolfCypher
11-20-2007, 04:06 PM
Yoko ONO! A black (sort of) candidate experimented around when he was a teen! Let's use that against him come 2008!
Hey, truth be told, I kinda see him as being a little cooler now. Like when the nerdy son tells his dad he banged the hot chick 2 years older than him. Instead of being mad he had underage, unprotected sex, dady's proud of his geeky son. Thattaboy!
Who is this Obama guy? What did he do for our country?
Mr Sparkle
11-20-2007, 04:53 PM
No offence, but drugs are for morons who don't know the value of life. If someone needs controlled substances to make them feel good, then they obviously don't have any idea of what art, theatre, music, fine dining, and women, are.
:hyper:
no offense, but anyone that thinks that the people who create art, theater and music weren't consuming massive amounts of drugs are just being naive.
also.
I hope this straight edge view of the world you have extends to alcohol, since that's kind of a drug.:o
rdh007
11-20-2007, 04:55 PM
Who is this Obama guy? What did he do for our country?
Saved it. Like a superhero.
04nbod
11-20-2007, 04:56 PM
so much respect for his honesty! I doubt those leaning to the conservatives will see it that way though
Saved it. Like a superhero.
What did he do to save this country? He was only in the Senate for 2 years before he started to run his Presidential Campain.
rdh007
11-20-2007, 05:00 PM
I was being facetious, as was CK1 I suspect. How about if we look at it like this; Obama has done no more damage to his country than any of these people.
Mr Sparkle
11-20-2007, 05:01 PM
What did he do to save this country? He was only in the Senate for 2 years before he started to run his Presidential Campain.
you dislike him?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.