The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[R0rschach]

You did not seriously just compare Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. PLEASE tell me I misunderstood you.

Ohh yes he did. LOL :hehe:

[Malice]

If he wins, I'll give him a chance. If he becomes Nancy Pelosi's lap dog (as I am sure he will)...I will rant and rave with the white hot hate of a thousand suns for the next four years :woot:

Nicely said....

[bored]

If he wins, I'll give him a chance. If he becomes Nancy Pelosi's lap dog (as I am sure he will)...I will rant and rave with the white hot hate of a thousand suns for the next four years :woot:


What makes you so sure of it?

[Malice]

My test for him.
put him in a locked room with Putin...
lets watch him get chewed up one side and down another.

[Carcharodon]

You did not seriously just compare Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. PLEASE tell me I misunderstood you.I'm pretty sure the irony is going to make my head explode. :csad:

[R0rschach]

If he becomes Nancy Pelosi's lap dog (as I am sure he will)


Maybe, hope not. :D

[Metamorpho1977]

I don't mean for my description to come off so harsh, I was just comparing Hippie's description to that guy Adolph. No one can be as bad as that guy.

[jaguarr]

If he wins, I'll give him a chance. If he becomes Nancy Pelosi's lap dog (as I am sure he will)...I will rant and rave with the white hot hate of a thousand suns for the next four years :woot:

Haha! Fair enough. :D

My test for him.
put him in a locked room with Putin...
lets watch him get chewed up one side and down another.

Sadly, our current President could not pass your test.

jag

[Matt]

What makes you so sure of it?

Well, his entire Congressional career has been that of a lap dog to the Pelosi regime...why should I assume his presidential career will be any different?

[jaguarr]

Matt, I think the time has come for you to change your Custom Title from "The badliest moderator" to "The Modliest Joker". :up:

jag

[Matt]

Matt, I think the time has come for you to change your Custom Title from "The badliest moderator" to "The Modliest Joker". :up:

jag

Brilliant! Done, and done!

[jaguarr]

Brilliant! Done, and done!

Excellent. :up:

jag

[hippie_hunter]

There was another charismatic guy that ran a country one time too. He ran on a platform of change too way back in the 1930s in Berlin. I don't want to be so harsh, just the similarities in Hippies description are similar to that guy.

As much as I hate Obama, damn....no one deserves to be compared to Hitler.

Unlike Hitler, Obama at least has good intentions.

[bored]

I don't mean for my description to come off so harsh, I was just comparing Hippie's description to that guy Adolph. No one can be as bad as that guy.


Taking it to the extreme of Hitler is going way too far. Plenty of people run off of charisma and a platform of change, that doesn't mean they should be compared to him.

[terry78]

Yeah, Hitler comparisons are a little much. I remember telling one dude out somewhere I didn't drink and he says, "you know who else didn't drink? Hitler." Where the **** did that come from?

[Secret_Riddle]

If I was American he'd have my vote..and that seems to be a pattern I'm seeing with people outside of the country..maybe we just don't understand what the citizens want.

If Obama was Canadian he would get into office, he seems like a more reserved Trudeau.

[jaguarr]

If I was American he'd have my vote..and that seems to be a pattern I'm seeing with people outside of the country..maybe we just don't understand what the citizens want.

If Obama was Canadian he would get into office, he seems like a more reserved Trudeau.

People here are sheep and will vote for whomever the media tells them to vote for. They don't know what they want either, collectively speaking.

jag

[ObakeTora]

I trully cant see why anyone likes her...
She is one of the most fake people I have seen
She reminds me of the condescending next door neighbor who always called the police on my friend during a smoke party.

[Figs]

Yeah, Hitler comparisons are a little much. I remember telling one dude out somewhere I didn't drink and he says, "you know who else didn't drink? Hitler." Where the **** did that come from?


LOL, some moron actually said that?...jesus!

[Ultimate_Superman]

Personally I think Edwards should run as Obama's running mate for VP. That would be a great team there.

[Malice]

It wont happen.
To Edwards, that is a step down.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I know and understand that but if those two worked side by side as President and Vice President it would be something.

[Matt]

I know and understand that but if those two worked side by side as President and Vice President it would be something.

No it wouldn't. They have various conflicting ideas (and grossly conflicting. Not just minor differences). Besides, Obama needs someone with experience on his team. Someone like Bob Graham or Mike Easley.

Just because two names are well recognized doesn't mean they are a good team or should run together.

[Excel]

Obamania!!

[Golgo-13]

Personally I think Edwards should run as Obama's running mate for VP. That would be a great team there.

I agree. But, then again i dunno. Edwards seems a little timid and passive to me. Can't put my finger on what it is, but there's just something about him that makes me think that.....

[Matt]

Since everyone always asks me my beef with Obama...I am going to state them.

1) Free Trade - Any one who is a proponent of free trade is not a real Democrat and does not give a damn about the lower to middle class. Plain and simple. Obama has stated on numerous times that he supports an FTA wil Peru and will continue to endorse free trade and make FTAs in his presidency. That is quite frankly, unacceptable.

2) The War in Iraq - Obama's plan is not acceptable. He wishes to pull out all of our troops but 5,000? Either **** or get off the pot. If you are going to pull out our troops, pull them all out. Don't leave behind a 5,000 troop "peace keeping force" that will inevitably be wiped out when termoil and civil war engulf the country (which will happen basically as soon as we pull out). I mean, that is like leaving 5,000 troops simply to be slaughtered.

3) Education - Merit pay is a ridiculously stupid idea. Grades are not bad because teachers are bad. They are bad because lower income students do not believe they have a chance to escape their current situation so they put no effort into it. Ontop of that, public schools are grossly underfunded. It has nothing to do with teacher's being ineffective. They can only teach effectively if they have up to date books and equipment as well as students who have a desire to learn. Lets stop pointing the finger at the teachers and start pointing them at ourselves for allowing our public education to enter such an economic depression and students who are unwilling to learn.

4) Business - I feel that he tries to get the government TOO involved in corporate managment. We have a free market society. Government intervention in issues such as share holder votes (as Obama supports) is not a good idea. It is border-line communism.

5) Alternative Energy - I like his support of the usage of nuclear power, however I do not like that he is a big fan of plug-in hybrids. There are frankly better and more promising types of alternative energy in automobiles that we should be focusing on. Ontop of that, he supports keeping a .54 cent per gallon tarriff on imported ethanol. It would be one thing if we had a better alternative readily avaliable...but the fact is, we don't. Right now we need gasoline and that tarriff is only hurting middle and lower class Americans at the pump. Its not helping anything but lining the pockets of our lawmakers.

6) Taxation - so he wants to repeal the Bush tax cut, only to make one of his own? I think it is a bad idea. First of all, we are in an extreme deficit. I don't think cutting taxes is a smart move at the moment (especially considering Obama wishes to expand the welfare state). However, I do believe the middle and lower class need some help. I say we make the first 5,000 dollars anyone earns in any given calender year tax free in terms of FICA and the Federal Income Tax. If you're earning 20 thousand dollars a year, that tax free 5,000 will help you quite a bit. Not to mention it won't put that much of a dent in our country's pocket as the lowest earning 50 % of our country only accounts for about 3 % of our total income taxes. It seems to me like it would help those lower income families quite a bit and hopefully the feds could convince state level government to follow suit.

Healthcare - I am opposed to federal funded healthcare at this point in our country's history. It is just the wrong time for it. I'd normally support it, but we honestly just can't afford it right now. And Obama's plan makes no sense to me anyway. He says he wants the recipetants of federal healthcare, which under his plan, will be the same program that Congress recieves, to pay for it? How the hell are they supposed to do that? People who use federal healthcare would be lower income families. They are supposed to be able to pay for the same healthcare as Congress? Considering his plan, there seems to be 2 options

1) Either he truly expects these people to pay for their own healthcare, in which case, why even bother intervening in it and leave it to the private sector? Government intervention in the private sector should only occur when absolutely necessary.

2) They will pay a small portion but the tax payers eat up the majority of the costs. In which case we come back to the entire...can't afford it problem (especially with his tax cut plan)

Social Welfare - Obama has said he wants to expand FDR's policies of the New Deal. That makes no sense to me. Our country is not nearly in as bad of a state as we were during the Great Depression so why expand a policy tailor made for that time? I believe welfare has its place. But I also believe it needs extreme reform and limitation. We should focus on finding jobs for people on welfare, not giving them more hand outs. And the hand outs we give should be very closely monitiored to avoid abuse. We shouldn't encourage anyone to be on welfare, and it seems to me, that is exactly what Obama wants to do.

Immigration - Obama supports guest worker programs (which I disagree with being as how many Americans are currently unemployed? How about we get them jobs before focusing on others. And he says he will oppose any law that blocks unregistered illegals from getting citizenship. Yay! Lets reward people for breaking the law!

Iran - To completely rule out war, with so many variables in that situation is just stupid...and yet Obama had no problem doing so.

Abortion - He opposes partial birth abortion bans? To me that is just sick. I don't like the notion of the government getting involved with a woman's body, but how anyone who has read anything on partial birth abortions can consider it anything less than murder baffles me.

Gay Marriage - Its a non-issue, really...but what bothers me is the way he does the same flip-flopping every politican does on it. "Well, I don't support a gay marriage ban, but I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Make up your mind :cmad:

Gun Control - I like his stances on gun control quite a bit. Why does anyone really need an autorifle? But alas, its really a non-issue for me.

Death Penalty - Seems like more flip-flopping. "I think the death penalty should not be used...but I don't support banning it and favor using it." WTF? :huh:

So yeah, that is why I am opposed to the candidacy of Barack Obama. You're welcome.

[Mr Sparkle]

Since everyone always asks me my beef with Obama...I am going to state them.

1) Free Trade - Any one who is a proponent of free trade is not a real Democrat and does not give a damn about the lower to middle class. Plain and simple. Obama has stated on numerous times that he supports an FTA wil Peru and will continue to endorse free trade and make FTAs in his presidency. That is quite frankly, unacceptable.

to start off these seem more YOUR reasons than reasons.
for instance there's several views on the issue given by economists and some say that free trade is detrimental while others say it's not.
economists, not pundits, economists are split on this issue.

2) The War in Iraq - Obama's plan is not acceptable. He wishes to pull out all of our troops but 5,000? Either **** or get off the pot. If you are going to pull out our troops, pull them all out. Don't leave behind a 5,000 troop "peace keeping force" that will inevitably be wiped out when termoil and civil war engulf the country (which will happen basically as soon as we pull out). I mean, that is like leaving 5,000 troops simply to be slaughtered.

either the Iraq war is going well or it is not.
the plan seems correct in the peacekeeping aspect, and if the troop number should be larger, then maybe it's up to military strategists to decide ( as they will, under pressure from the POTUS no doubt) but the " either stay or leave" mentality is kind of weird.
the country was invaded, just leaving now is not an option, until stability is reached, this was always about larger interests than freedom anyway, so we shall see.

3) Education - Merit pay is a ridiculously stupid idea. Grades are not bad because teachers are bad. They are bad because lower income students do not believe they have a chance to escape their current situation so they put no effort into it. Ontop of that, public schools are grossly underfunded. It has nothing to do with teacher's being ineffective. They can only teach effectively if they have up to date books and equipment as well as students who have a desire to learn. Lets stop pointing the finger at the teachers and start pointing them at ourselves for allowing our public education to enter such an economic depression and students who are unwilling to learn.

I agree with you here, is that his stance on the issuse?

4) Business - I feel that he tries to get the government TOO involved in corporate managment. We have a free market society. Government intervention in issues such as share holder votes (as Obama supports) is not a good idea. It is border-line communism.

but you're basically saying that if he makes a mistake his idea won't work.
that's true of ANY plan, especially in regards to something as intangible as economy.

5) Alternative Energy - I like his support of the usage of nuclear power, however I do not like that he is a big fan of plug-in hybrids. There are frankly better and more promising types of alternative energy in automobiles that we should be focusing on. Ontop of that, he supports keeping a .54 cent per gallon tarriff on imported ethanol. It would be one thing if we had a better alternative readily avaliable...but the fact is, we don't. Right now we need gasoline and that tarriff is only hurting middle and lower class Americans at the pump. Its not helping anything but lining the pockets of our lawmakers.

usage of nuclear power....ugh.
but once again, you're not citing mistakes, you are citing your own personal IDEAS and ascribing them as mistakes or failuers in policy.
that's why no one can prove or disprove, seeing as how no one could irrevocably say there aren't better options for energy.
the same could be true from the stand point of your opinion.
once wind was regarded as the future of energy, for whatever reason it has yet to cristalize.

6) Taxation - so he wants to repeal the Bush tax cut, only to make one of his own? I think it is a bad idea. First of all, we are in an extreme deficit. I don't think cutting taxes is a smart move at the moment (especially considering Obama wishes to expand the welfare state). However, I do believe the middle and lower class need some help. I say we make the first 5,000 dollars anyone earns in any given calender year tax free in terms of FICA and the Federal Income Tax. If you're earning 20 thousand dollars a year, that tax free 5,000 will help you quite a bit. Not to mention it won't put that much of a dent in our country's pocket as the lowest earning 50 % of our country only accounts for about 3 % of our total income taxes. It seems to me like it would help those lower income families quite a bit and hopefully the feds could convince state level government to follow suit.

expend the welfare state?

Healthcare - I am opposed to federal funded healthcare at this point in our country's history. It is just the wrong time for it. I'd normally support it, but we honestly just can't afford it right now. And Obama's plan makes no sense to me anyway. He says he wants the recipetants of federal healthcare, which under his plan, will be the same program that Congress recieves, to pay for it? How the hell are they supposed to do that? People who use federal healthcare would be lower income families. They are supposed to be able to pay for the same healthcare as Congress? Considering his plan, there seems to be 2 options

1) Either he truly expects these people to pay for their own healthcare, in which case, why even bother intervening in it and leave it to the private sector? Government intervention in the private sector should only occur when absolutely necessary.

2) They will pay a small portion but the tax payers eat up the majority of the costs. In which case we come back to the entire...can't afford it problem (especially with his tax cut plan)

again, you're assuming the mechanics of his proposition and based on these assumptions you're saying the would fail or be innadequate.
but there's a lot of ways that you could make this work ( just look at England for instance) there's no better time in your country's history to make healthcare available to all.

Social Welfare - Obama has said he wants to expand FDR's policies of the New Deal. That makes no sense to me. Our country is not nearly in as bad of a state as we were during the Great Depression so why expand a policy tailor made for that time? I believe welfare has its place. But I also believe it needs extreme reform and limitation. We should focus on finding jobs for people on welfare, not giving them more hand outs. And the hand outs we give should be very closely monitiored to avoid abuse. We shouldn't encourage anyone to be on welfare, and it seems to me, that is exactly what Obama wants to do.

I don't think any politician wants to encourage people to be on welfare.
that's an assumption again, how can this be disproven or refuted with anythingother than " no, he doesn't" :huh:




Immigration - Obama supports guest worker programs (which I disagree with being as how many Americans are currently unemployed? How about we get them jobs before focusing on others. And he says he will oppose any law that blocks unregistered illegals from getting citizenship. Yay! Lets reward people for breaking the law!

haha, there's a thread on this, but once again, these seem more like solely your opinion than any actual failures in policy.
you've said time and time again you oposse this or that, but seldom give a passing reason for it.

Iran - To completely rule out war, with so many variables in that situation is just stupid...and yet Obama had no problem doing so.

:huh: " diplomacy " is a mind game.


Abortion - He opposes partial birth abortion bans? To me that is just sick. I don't like the notion of the government getting involved with a woman's body, but how anyone who has read anything on partial birth abortions can consider it anything less than murder baffles me.

I agree with this.

Gay Marriage - Its a non-issue, really...but what bothers me is the way he does the same flip-flopping every politican does on it. "Well, I don't support a gay marriage ban, but I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Make up your mind :cmad:

yet, it bothers you when HE does it?


Gun Control - I like his stances on gun control quite a bit. Why does anyone really need an autorifle? But alas, its really a non-issue for me.

:up:

Death Penalty - Seems like more flip-flopping. "I think the death penalty should not be used...but I don't support banning it and favor using it." WTF? :huh:

So yeah, that is why I am opposed to the candidacy of Barack Obama. You're welcome.

his actions on the issue and legislative contributions have been far less ambiguous.

[terry78]

While I have my reasons for Obama from past review of what he's been talking about and answers regarding certain areas, there is a small part of me that wants him to win just to see the reaction from those that don't want him to, petty as it may seem.

[Matt]

to start off these seem more YOUR reasons than reasons.
for instance there's several views on the issue given by economists and some say that free trade is detrimental while others say it's not.
economists, not pundits, economists are split on this issue.

Economists look at the numbers, not the people. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who were put out of work by free trade.



either the Iraq war is going well or it is not.
the plan seems correct in the peacekeeping aspect, and if the troop number should be larger, then maybe it's up to military strategists to decide ( as they will, under pressure from the POTUS no doubt) but the " either stay or leave" mentality is kind of weird.
the country was invaded, just leaving now is not an option, until stability is reached, this was always about larger interests than freedom anyway, so we shall see.

If thats the case, then lets stay and finish it. To pull out all but 5,000 is sheer stupidity.


I agree with you here, is that his stance on the issuse?


His stance on the issue is merit pay. Which pretty much dictates that teachers with smarter students get more money.

[qute]
but you're basically saying that if he makes a mistake his idea won't work.
that's true of ANY plan, especially in regards to something as intangible as economy.
[/quote]

No, I'm saying government intervention in the free market is a bad idea, regardless of outcome. Especially to the extent Obama wishes to use.


usage of nuclear power....ugh.
but once again, you're not citing mistakes, you are citing your own personal IDEAS and ascribing them as mistakes or failuers in policy.
that's why no one can prove or disprove, seeing as how no one could irrevocably say there aren't better options for energy.
the same could be true from the stand point of your opinion.
once wind was regarded as the future of energy, for whatever reason it has yet to cristalize.

Everything I typed was in response to his policy ideas as laid out on his web page. He is the one who wants nuclear power. You've asked why I am opposed to him, I am citing his ideas and explaining my own beliefs which support why I am against him.


again, you're assuming the mechanics of his proposition and based on these assumptions you're saying the would fail or be innadequate.
but there's a lot of ways that you could make this work ( just look at England for instance) there's no better time in your country's history to make healthcare available to all.



I don't think any politician wants to encourage people to be on welfare.
that's an assumption again, how can this be disproven or refuted with anythingother than " no, he doesn't" :huh:



haha, there's a thread on this, but once again, these seem more like solely your opinion than any actual failures in policy.
you've said time and time again you oposse this or that, but seldom give a passing reason for it.

Of course it is based on my own assumptions and opinions. That is politics. What can I say? Of course my own thoughts on issues are going to effect what I believe.


:huh: " diplomacy " is a mind game.
[/quote

Iran has proven they are not open to diplomacy. But I am still all for trying. All I am saying is, we need a commander-in-chief who is willing to go to war if diplomacy fails.

[quote]
I agree with this.


Glad we are on the same page on something.


yet, it bothers you when HE does it?


It bothers me when any politican does it. What bothers me about him is the way he pronounces himself as above it and talks down at other politicans for doing it. If you are going to be on a high horse, you probably shouldn't be doing the very thing you are criticizing.


his actions on the issue and legislative contributions have been far less ambiguous.

Well, all I have to go on is what he has said.

[Cosmic]

The Obama campaign is playing it smooth. I'm not his biggest fan, but I like what I'm seeing right now. He's my preferred candidate, by a longshot.

[jaguarr]

Economists look at the numbers, not the people. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who were put out of work by free trade.

The concept of free trade itself isn't the problem, but rather the issue lies with how it's been implemented and executed.


If thats the case, then lets stay and finish it. To pull out all but 5,000 is sheer stupidity.

We'll be there until the end of time, then, Matt. There is no "finishing it" in that part of the world. It's been going on for thousands of years. Our presence isn't going to end it.



His stance on the issue is merit pay. Which pretty much dictates that teachers with smarter students get more money.

Agreed that this is not a good idea. Then again, neither is dumbing down the education system and fixating on every student getting a passing grade while not giving our brighter students a chance to excel or putting a focus on math and sciences in our educational system, such as we have now.


No, I'm saying government intervention in the free market is a bad idea, regardless of outcome. Especially to the extent Obama wishes to use.

I agree, and this is the major problem I have with the Bush legacy; no other administration has catered to lobbyists and corporate interests more than them. Same goes for the Republican Congress that just left office. Jury is still out on their Democratic successors.


Everything I typed was in response to his policy ideas as laid out on his web page. He is the one who wants nuclear power. You've asked why I am opposed to him, I am citing his ideas and explaining my own beliefs which support why I am against him.

There's a big movement towards nuclear power, not just from him but from a lot of folks. Not too keen on it myself.



Iran has proven they are not open to diplomacy. But I am still all for trying. All I am saying is, we need a commander-in-chief who is willing to go to war if diplomacy fails.

I don't hear Obama saying he will not go to war, period. I hear him saying "diplomacy first" and wanting to put energy into that before having to turn to that alternative.


It bothers me when any politican does it. What bothers me about him is the way he pronounces himself as above it and talks down at other politicans for doing it. If you are going to be on a high horse, you probably shouldn't be doing the very thing you are criticizing.

On some things he's definitely walking the walk, but in other areas he's a bit hypocritical, I agree.
[/quote]

jag

[bored]

Since everyone always asks me my beef with Obama...I am going to state them.

1) Free Trade - Any one who is a proponent of free trade is not a real Democrat and does not give a damn about the lower to middle class. Plain and simple. Obama has stated on numerous times that he supports an FTA wil Peru and will continue to endorse free trade and make FTAs in his presidency. That is quite frankly, unacceptable.

2) The War in Iraq - Obama's plan is not acceptable. He wishes to pull out all of our troops but 5,000? Either **** or get off the pot. If you are going to pull out our troops, pull them all out. Don't leave behind a 5,000 troop "peace keeping force" that will inevitably be wiped out when termoil and civil war engulf the country (which will happen basically as soon as we pull out). I mean, that is like leaving 5,000 troops simply to be slaughtered.

3) Education - Merit pay is a ridiculously stupid idea. Grades are not bad because teachers are bad. They are bad because lower income students do not believe they have a chance to escape their current situation so they put no effort into it. Ontop of that, public schools are grossly underfunded. It has nothing to do with teacher's being ineffective. They can only teach effectively if they have up to date books and equipment as well as students who have a desire to learn. Lets stop pointing the finger at the teachers and start pointing them at ourselves for allowing our public education to enter such an economic depression and students who are unwilling to learn.

4) Business - I feel that he tries to get the government TOO involved in corporate managment. We have a free market society. Government intervention in issues such as share holder votes (as Obama supports) is not a good idea. It is border-line communism.

5) Alternative Energy - I like his support of the usage of nuclear power, however I do not like that he is a big fan of plug-in hybrids. There are frankly better and more promising types of alternative energy in automobiles that we should be focusing on. Ontop of that, he supports keeping a .54 cent per gallon tarriff on imported ethanol. It would be one thing if we had a better alternative readily avaliable...but the fact is, we don't. Right now we need gasoline and that tarriff is only hurting middle and lower class Americans at the pump. Its not helping anything but lining the pockets of our lawmakers.

6) Taxation - so he wants to repeal the Bush tax cut, only to make one of his own? I think it is a bad idea. First of all, we are in an extreme deficit. I don't think cutting taxes is a smart move at the moment (especially considering Obama wishes to expand the welfare state). However, I do believe the middle and lower class need some help. I say we make the first 5,000 dollars anyone earns in any given calender year tax free in terms of FICA and the Federal Income Tax. If you're earning 20 thousand dollars a year, that tax free 5,000 will help you quite a bit. Not to mention it won't put that much of a dent in our country's pocket as the lowest earning 50 % of our country only accounts for about 3 % of our total income taxes. It seems to me like it would help those lower income families quite a bit and hopefully the feds could convince state level government to follow suit.

Healthcare - I am opposed to federal funded healthcare at this point in our country's history. It is just the wrong time for it. I'd normally support it, but we honestly just can't afford it right now. And Obama's plan makes no sense to me anyway. He says he wants the recipetants of federal healthcare, which under his plan, will be the same program that Congress recieves, to pay for it? How the hell are they supposed to do that? People who use federal healthcare would be lower income families. They are supposed to be able to pay for the same healthcare as Congress? Considering his plan, there seems to be 2 options

1) Either he truly expects these people to pay for their own healthcare, in which case, why even bother intervening in it and leave it to the private sector? Government intervention in the private sector should only occur when absolutely necessary.

2) They will pay a small portion but the tax payers eat up the majority of the costs. In which case we come back to the entire...can't afford it problem (especially with his tax cut plan)

Social Welfare - Obama has said he wants to expand FDR's policies of the New Deal. That makes no sense to me. Our country is not nearly in as bad of a state as we were during the Great Depression so why expand a policy tailor made for that time? I believe welfare has its place. But I also believe it needs extreme reform and limitation. We should focus on finding jobs for people on welfare, not giving them more hand outs. And the hand outs we give should be very closely monitiored to avoid abuse. We shouldn't encourage anyone to be on welfare, and it seems to me, that is exactly what Obama wants to do.

Immigration - Obama supports guest worker programs (which I disagree with being as how many Americans are currently unemployed? How about we get them jobs before focusing on others. And he says he will oppose any law that blocks unregistered illegals from getting citizenship. Yay! Lets reward people for breaking the law!

Iran - To completely rule out war, with so many variables in that situation is just stupid...and yet Obama had no problem doing so.

Abortion - He opposes partial birth abortion bans? To me that is just sick. I don't like the notion of the government getting involved with a woman's body, but how anyone who has read anything on partial birth abortions can consider it anything less than murder baffles me.

Gay Marriage - Its a non-issue, really...but what bothers me is the way he does the same flip-flopping every politican does on it. "Well, I don't support a gay marriage ban, but I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Make up your mind :cmad:

Gun Control - I like his stances on gun control quite a bit. Why does anyone really need an autorifle? But alas, its really a non-issue for me.

Death Penalty - Seems like more flip-flopping. "I think the death penalty should not be used...but I don't support banning it and favor using it." WTF? :huh:

So yeah, that is why I am opposed to the candidacy of Barack Obama. You're welcome.


A few things:

I see your points about the free market and free trade to be somewhat contradictory to each other.

If some of those last things are "non-issues", why do you include them here? If a politician is commenting on a trivial issue, it's probably because they were merely asked what they felt about it, and nobody is going to say "I just don't give a ****".

What did Obama actually say in regards to the death penalty?

The logic which draws you to say that Obama encourages people to be on welfare sounds eerily similar to the people who think that everyone who recieves social security is just lazy.

Is he supporting hybrids to the point that he is disregarding other forms of alternative energy? Or is he just supporting what is currently available? Think about that.

[Venom'sDad]

The concept of free trade itself isn't the problem, but rather the issue lies with how it's been implemented and executed.

jag

Bill Clinton has already signed Nafta and George W has already signed Cafta. Both are free trade agreements. The first with Canada & Mexico, the latter with Central American states & some(not all) South American states. The free trade they want to pass now is essentially global. That is why so many people see the North American Union as being already in existence.

[jaguarr]

Bill Clinton has already signed Nafta and George W has already signed Cafta. Both are free trade agreements. The first with Canada & Mexico, the latter with Central American states & some(not all) South American states. The free trade they want to pass now is essentially global. That is why so many people see the North American Union as being already in existence.

With the way our government has aided and abetted the large scale offshoring of core competency jobs, particularly in the tech sector, from the U.S. to places like India and China (especially during the Bush administration), it could be argued that the globalized free trade agreements are already informally in place and benefiting everyone BUT the U.S. in terms of labor market improvements.

jag

[Venom'sDad]

With the way our government has aided and abetted the large scale offshoring of core competency jobs, particularly in the tech sector, from the U.S. to places like India and China (especially during the Bush administration), it could be argued that the globalized free trade agreements are already informally in place and benefiting everyone BUT the U.S. in terms of labor market improvements.

jag

Jag, I agree with you sentiments, but most of those job went over seas during the Clinton years and started during Bush Sr. presidency.... please make no mistakes about that.

This country has been loss sence 1986, Bush Sr. true first two years with the elected senate/congress that year, because Reagan was effectively relegated ineffective from that point on. Reagan was this country last true President.

[jaguarr]

Jag, I agree with you sentiments, but most of those job went over seas during the Clinton years and started during Bush Sr. presidency.... please make no mistakes about that.

This country has been loss sence 1986, Bush Sr. true first two years with the elected senate/congress that year, because Reagan was effectively relegated ineffective from that point on. Reagan was this country last true President.

I work in outsourcing, sending that work overseas (yes, I feel dirty). Trust me, it's been a thousand times more prevalent under Bush's administration than it ever was under Clinton.

jag

[EdRyder]

[quote=Matt;13747700]

2) The War in Iraq - Obama's plan is not acceptable. He wishes to pull out all of our troops but 5,000? Either **** or get off the pot. If you are going to pull out our troops, pull them all out. Don't leave behind a 5,000 troop "peace keeping force" that will inevitably be wiped out when termoil and civil war engulf the country (which will happen basically as soon as we pull out). I mean, that is like leaving 5,000 troops simply to be slaughtered.

3) Education - Merit pay is a ridiculously stupid idea. Grades are not bad because teachers are bad. They are bad because lower income students do not believe they have a chance to escape their current situation so they put no effort into it. Ontop of that, public schools are grossly underfunded. It has nothing to do with teacher's being ineffective. They can only teach effectively if they have up to date books and equipment as well as students who have a desire to learn. Lets stop pointing the finger at the teachers and start pointing them at ourselves for allowing our public education to enter such an economic depression and students who are unwilling to learn.



quote]

The only area here I can agree with is No Child Left Behind reform.
Its the one issue I hope Obama would readdress,but doesn't look as if he will.
Time and time and time again this is the same course when it comes to every issue and it baffles my mind.No matter what the topic-The answer is always to throw more money at it.
"What are we going to do to reduce drunk driving?" ="Same plan,throw more money into it...Maybe "this year" it will work out.
We need a NEW PLAN, not the same plan with more funding.

A few of your other issues hold water,but for the most part I cant agree with you.
You cited social welfare as an issue=And its not.Corporate welfare is an issue-Social welfare is a drop in the bucket comparatively.But the social aspect seems to be in peoples minds as more important.Why is that?

Iraq-Dont believe any of these politicians=Especially the Democrats when it comes to Iraq.They've all ran on a campaign of a "phased redeployment".I swear to you all right now each and every one of them is either lying threw their teeth or just dont know any better.
To all of you- Read Micheal Gordons book Cobra II.
Read George Tenets book Center of the Storm.
Read Bob Woddwards book State of Denial.

There is no leaving Iraq.
The money has been spent.
The contracts have gone out.
Were building the largest embassy in the world there.

Thank you for clarifying your stance here Matt.

[Venom'sDad]

I work in outsourcing, sending that work overseas (yes, I feel dirty). Trust me, it's been a thousand times more prevalent under Bush's administration than it ever was under Clinton.

jag

I howly doubt it, because Bill Clinton before he left office pist-off Corporations by sign a bill that restrict some of the loop hole that allowed business to move offices and warehouses overseas to avoid tax and hire cheap labor and added a tax for products imported back to the U.S.

That was one of the things that followed Gore bid for the presidency. George W, has to follow that bill, not saying jobs are not still going over, just reduced. So Bill Clinton did technically, in leaving office, reduce the amount of jobs going overseas. So now he can claim that BS.

[jaguarr]

I howly doubt it, because Bill Clinton before he left office pist-off Corporations by sign a bill that restrict some of the loop hole that allowed business to move offices and warehouses overseas to avoid tax and hire cheap labor and added a tax for products imported back to the U.S.

That was one of the things that followed Gore bid for the presidency. George W, has to follow that bill, not saying jobs are not still going over, just reduced. So Bill Clinton did technically, in leaving office, reduce the amount of jobs going overseas. So now he can claim that BS.

The offshoring of higher-education requiring tech jobs like engineering work has accelerated at an incredible rate in the tech industry in the past five years. I know, because I've been doing the contracts for all of it for a very large Fortune 50 tech company. I see and hear similar stories from peers working for other tech companies. We're outsourcing our core competency knowledge at an alarming rate, and the Bush Administration has absolutely helped facilitate that.

jag

[The Senator]

I'm starting to lean more and more towards Obama. His lack of experience is still questionable, but as a Democrat looking to win back the White House, I have noticed that his appeal is undeniably strong to voters from all political aisles. If he wins the nomination, I'd have no problem supporting him.

[blackcobra]

In the last 2 weeks America has shown why it's the greatest Country on Earth. With Barak Obama's decisive victory in IOWA proves that America has evolved as Nation. And quite frankly, Barak is exactly what America needs. A half white/black candidate that both communities can be proud of. The perfect candidate to unite America and move us past the divisive issues that's stagnating our progress. The amount of Republicans who're converting to this movement of change is staggering. And I have the utmost respect for them, because that takes an astronomical amount of courage and I commend you all. Even if Barak doesn't end up being elected, his campaign has still provided a window into the heart and minds of America, and for the first time in 8 years, I'm very proud of what I see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUUYo9o9eg

[BobJM]

Obama is very personable and charismatic, that's why he's doing so well. And he knows this. That's why that he keeps his mouth shut when it comes to actual politics.

True, Bush has made some bad choices, but Obama doesn't know how to run a country. The little bit that he has mentioned his big plans, everything has just been ridiculous. Yes, it all looks nice on paper but "how" is never asked. When he says he wants a universal health care system for the nation, where does he think this money is coming from? Are we going to face exponential tax raises to support this plan?

Obama is popular, and I'm no racist, because he's African American. Clinton, as much as I can't stand her or her husband, actually has more going for her besides that fact that she is a woman. Oprah glorifying you on her talk show and proclaiming how you're black and you'll help out the black community can only get you so far.

[PLAS]

great, and I'm cheering here next to ya, but shouldn't this be in the politics forum?

[Venom'sDad]

The offshoring of higher-education requiring tech jobs like engineering work has accelerated at an incredible rate in the tech industry in the past five years. I know, because I've been doing the contracts for all of it for a very large Fortune 50 tech company. I see and hear similar stories from peers working for other tech companies. We're outsourcing our core competency knowledge at an alarming rate, and the Bush Administration has absolutely helped facilitate that.

jag

That is simply not true, American is importing talent from other countries in the tech, communications, science, medical, and higher education fields, to this country. Predominately manufactoring jobs and telecommunication jobs and a few others like service jobs and etc, has been going overseas.

Technology secrets, thanks to William Jefferson Clinton, have been gone overseas to rogue countries like China, Pakistan, India, Russia, and others like Israel, Brazil, Germany and other European countries; during various scandals over his last 6 years.

Remember.... or how quick do we forget.

[EdRyder]

Obama is very personable and charismatic, that's why he's doing so well. And he knows this. That's why that he keeps his mouth shut when it comes to actual politics.

True, Bush has made some bad choices, but Obama doesn't know how to run a country. The little bit that he has mentioned his big plans, everything has just been ridiculous. Yes, it all looks nice on paper but "how" is never asked. When he says he wants a universal health care system for the nation, where does he think this money is coming from? Are we going to face exponential tax raises to support this plan?

Obama is popular, and I'm no racist, because he's African American. Clinton, as much as I can't stand her or her husband, actually has more going for her besides that fact that she is a woman. Oprah glorifying you on her talk show and proclaiming how you're black and you'll help out the black community can only get you so far.

We spend one day in Iraq what it would cost to give every American healthcare for an entire year.

[jaguarr]

That is simply not true, American is importing talent from other countries in the tech, communications, science, medical, and higher education fields, to this country. Predominately manufactoring jobs and telecommunication jobs and a few others like service jobs and etc, has been going overseas.

Technology secrets, thanks to William Jefferson Clinton, have been gone overseas to rogue countries like China, Pakistan, India, Russia, and others like Israel, Brazil, Germany and other European countries; during various scandals over his last 6 years.

Remember.... or how quick do we forget.


Alright, well....thanks for telling me that I'm not seeing what I'm seeing in my field of expertise. :huh: Dude, engineering and QA work is being offshored en masse. I....WRITE....THE....CONTRACTS....FOR....IT. :dry:

You do know that the "talent' we bring into this country at a lower cost goes back to their own countries and shares everything they learn here, by the way.

jag

[Matt]

The concept of free trade itself isn't the problem, but rather the issue lies with how it's been implemented and executed.

Never-the-less, its killing our country's middle class.



We'll be there until the end of time, then, Matt. There is no "finishing it" in that part of the world. It's been going on for thousands of years. Our presence isn't going to end it.

Which is my point. Either pull out or don't. Don't leave a few thousand troops there to become easy picking.




Agreed that this is not a good idea. Then again, neither is dumbing down the education system and fixating on every student getting a passing grade while not giving our brighter students a chance to excel or putting a focus on math and sciences in our educational system, such as we have now.

I don't disagree with that. Merit pay is still stupid.


I agree, and this is the major problem I have with the Bush legacy; no other administration has catered to lobbyists and corporate interests more than them. Same goes for the Republican Congress that just left office. Jury is still out on their Democratic successors.

Yes, Bush and the Republicans screwed the pooch. That doesn't mean Obama should do the same, in just a diffrent way.


There's a big movement towards nuclear power, not just from him but from a lot of folks. Not too keen on it myself.

I think it is a good temporary solution.


I don't hear Obama saying he will not go to war, period. I hear him saying "diplomacy first" and wanting to put energy into that before having to turn to that alternative.

I've read an interview where he has said, under his presidency we will not go to war with Iran.

[Venom'sDad]

Alright, well....thanks for telling me that I'm not seeing what I'm seeing in my field of expertise. :huh: Dude, engineering and QA work is being offshored en masse. I....WRITE....THE....CONTRACTS....FOR....IT. :dry:

You do know that the "talent' we bring into this country at a lower cost goes back to their own countries and shares everything they learn here, by the way.

jag

Dude, you are mis-reading what I'm saying, I'm not saying that some are not moving, just no where near the numbers you are portraying on Bush behalf...

... and most don't leave, they stay, especially after getting a taste of Western Civilization.

[Matt]

A few things:

I see your points about the free market and free trade to be somewhat contradictory to each other.

It may seem that way, but its not. Taxing someone to do business outside of the country is one thing (especially since most importing and exporting use government resources). Demanding that shareholders have to vote on a certain issue each year is quite another and very much overstepping government bounds.


If some of those last things are "non-issues", why do you include them here? If a politician is commenting on a trivial issue, it's probably because they were merely asked what they felt about it, and nobody is going to say "I just don't give a ****".

I am addressing it because I was asked what I feel about Obama's stances. I am clarifying.


What did Obama actually say in regards to the death penalty?

That he is against it but thinks we should use it and not get rid of it. I kid you not.


The logic which draws you to say that Obama encourages people to be on welfare sounds eerily similar to the people who think that everyone who recieves social security is just lazy.

Social welfare and social security are two different things. Social security involves people paying into a fund so they are not bankrupt when they retire. Social welfare comes from unemployment (not retirement due to age or injury). When you are expanding the benefits of our welfare system, while supporting a guest worker program (as Obama does), you are pretty much saying "Well, we have jobs that we are going to give to foreign citizens, because our people do not want them. But its okay too mooch off the government on welfare." Do you see the difference?


Is he supporting hybrids to the point that he is disregarding other forms of alternative energy? Or is he just supporting what is currently available? Think about that.

Right now, nothing is really avaliable in a practical sense. Most hybrids, when you factor in the additional cost of owning a hybrid, shows no real benefits to the consumers pocket. Granted, the enviromental benefits are there, but they are not THAT great of an impact. And again, if he is so worried about the average man...why did he write a letter to George Bush in support of keeping a .54 cent per gallon tax on gas? The only ones being hurt by that are middle and lower class citizens.

[jaguarr]

Dude, you are mis-reading what I'm saying, I'm not saying that some are not moving, just no where near the numbers you are portraying on Bush behalf...

... and most don't leave, they stay, especially after getting a taste of Western Civilization.

Yes, it is due to what Bush and the Republican Congress have done in terms of making it easier than ever to offshore work. And, yes, it's happening on a very large scale. I deal with this every single day, man. :huh:

And no, most of them don't stay as they're here on time-limited work visas.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Economists look at the numbers, not the people. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who were put out of work by free trade.

not BY free trade but by the USE of free trade, what you're saying would be like me claiming that families were hurt by "Capitalism", they can get hurt by how it's applied, and anything can be corrupted to serve a purpose.


If thats the case, then lets stay and finish it. To pull out all but 5,000 is sheer stupidity.

there's nothing to "finish" look at occupations after major wars in countries that had NO civil unrest.
that's the problem with occupations, there's nothing to "finish" and there's always a mess left for whoever occupies next.


His stance on the issue is merit pay. Which pretty much dictates that teachers with smarter students get more money.

Q: What about performance-based pay? A: Teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their performance is assessed. And not just their own performance, but the school's performance generally. So they're teaching to the tests all the time. What I have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in terms of how to measure progress. Every teacher I think wants to succeed. And if we give them a pathway to professional development, where we're creating master teachers, they are helping with apprenticeships for young new teachers, they are involved in a variety of other activities, that are really adding value to the schools, then we should be able to give them more money for it. But we should only do it if the teachers themselves have some buy-in in terms of how they're measured. They can't be judged simply on standardized tests that don't take into account whether children are prepared before they get to school or not.


well, it's not as cut and dry and it sounds.




No, I'm saying government intervention in the free market is a bad idea, regardless of outcome. Especially to the extent Obama wishes to use.

no, you "IF he tries to get the government too involved" which pretty much means that the extent is either undefined or defined by you.
that's what I was saying. government regulation is necessary and if properly applied can actually activate an economy rather than hinder it. the key is to know what has been the trend in his economic policies, and as he is most likely beneath the boot of some special interest or another, how detrimental are these to the overall picture.



Everything I typed was in response to his policy ideas as laid out on his web page. He is the one who wants nuclear power. You've asked why I am opposed to him, I am citing his ideas and explaining my own beliefs which support why I am against him.

my point was that in some other thread you had mentioned these as valid issues rather than your own opinion, that's why I was puzzled to see this.



Iran has proven they are not open to diplomacy. But I am still all for trying. All I am saying is, we need a commander-in-chief who is willing to go to war if diplomacy fails.

and he said he is NOT willing to go to war even if diplomacy fails?:huh:
that sounds very unlike a politician, any politician at all actually.
plus, what Iran will or will not do is still pretty much in the air, the only thing that's for sure is that there are no Homosexuals there.



It bothers me when any politican does it. What bothers me about him is the way he pronounces himself as above it and talks down at other politicans for doing it. If you are going to be on a high horse, you probably shouldn't be doing the very thing you are criticizing.

I have no recollection of any politician saying "I'm just like every other politician"specially in a presidential race.



Well, all I have to go on is what he has said.

actually in this case you don't, since there is a record of his actions, so you can go by what he has said and done in the past 9 years or so.

[Kelly]

Hey New Hampshire has a hell of battle on the Democratic side.....

[Anguissette1979]

Hey New Hampshire has a hell of battle on the Democratic side.....

Yup.

*Grabs popcorn.

[Matt]

not BY free trade but by the USE of free trade, what you're saying would be like me claiming that families were hurt by "Capitalism", they can get hurt by how it's applied, and anything can be corrupted to serve a purpose.


Free trade makes it too easy to corrupt. And the only ones who really benefit from it in any scenario are corporations and foreign countries. America in general does not benefit from free trade.


there's nothing to "finish" look at occupations after major wars in countries that had NO civil unrest.
that's the problem with occupations, there's nothing to "finish" and there's always a mess left for whoever occupies next.


Then like I said, pull out. It is very black and white. Either you stay and keep fighting or you pull out. You don't pull out all but 5,000 and leave such a small number in the middle of a civil war.


well, it's not as cut and dry and it sounds.


I still believe it to be a bad idea.


no, you "IF he tries to get the government too involved" which pretty much means that the extent is either undefined or defined by you.
that's what I was saying. government regulation is necessary and if properly applied can actually activate an economy rather than hinder it. the key is to know what has been the trend in his economic policies, and as he is most likely beneath the boot of some special interest or another, how detrimental are these to the overall picture.

So you're saying the government should be able to tell share holders that they MUST vote on certain issues once a year? That seems like a bit too much interference for my liking.


my point was that in some other thread you had mentioned these as valid issues rather than your own opinion, that's why I was puzzled to see this.

These are the main issues that were discussed on his site.


and he said he is NOT willing to go to war even if diplomacy fails?:huh:
that sounds very unlike a politician, any politician at all actually.
plus, what Iran will or will not do is still pretty much in the air, the only thing that's for sure is that there are no Homosexuals there.

I could be wrong. He seems very anti-war though. At anyrate, I think he is asking to be pushed around.


I have no recollection of any politician saying "I'm just like every other politician"specially in a presidential race.

No, but most of them aren't on such a pedestal as Obama.


actually in this case you don't, since there is a record of his actions, so you can go by what he has said and done in the past 9 years or so.

Well, being as most legislatures do not vote on death penalty issues often...I'm pretty sure all you can do is take his word on this. Not to mention he has missed what...75 % of his votes in Congress? Impressive record for a first term senator. :cwink:


At anyrate though, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on most of this, as it seems to me to just be basic political differences.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm downright surprised to see Obama lose New Hampshire.

[Mr Sparkle]

Free trade makes it too easy to corrupt. And the only ones who really benefit from it in any scenario are corporations and foreign countries. America in general does not benefit from free trade.

American companies have so far been the greatest beneficiaries.
the effect on foreign countries ie Canada and Mexico hasn't been particularly meaningful.


Then like I said, pull out. It is very black and white. Either you stay and keep fighting or you pull out. You don't pull out all but 5,000 and leave such a small number in the middle of a civil war.

the problem is that it is NOT black and white, because a heavy occupation galvanizes hostility and transforms inner struggle into a struggle against the common foreign enemy.
you have to diminish the ideological impact of occupation while maintaining a foothold to see the reconstruction period through.
that's about it.


I still believe it to be a bad idea.
and you're entitled to that, It's just better to not oversimplify ideas in these areas, because that's the realm of soundbite politics and that's an area we want to stay away from.


So you're saying the government should be able to tell share holders that they MUST vote on certain issues once a year? That seems like a bit too much interference for my liking.

I never said that, this is what I said

no, you "IF he tries to get the government too involved" which pretty much means that the extent is either undefined or defined by you.
that's what I was saying. government regulation is necessary and if properly applied can actually activate an economy rather than hinder it. the key is to know what has been the trend in his economic policies, and as he is most likely beneath the boot of some special interest or another, how detrimental are these to the overall picture.
which really sounds nothing like what you said.


These are the main issues that were discussed on his site.

then perhaps you should look beyond his site, to his political history and record, stances on various issues and victories as well as flaws and defeats, something as important as the President Of The United States merits this, I would gather.


I could be wrong. He seems very anti-war though. At anyrate, I think he is asking to be pushed around.

the Idea that the President of The United States, who is in command of the most advanced Army in the world, and whose influence spans the globe even in cases to supposed "enemies" is perhaps not the safest assumption to make.


No, but most of them aren't on such a pedestal as Obama.

that just happens to mean he is GOOD at his job as a politician.
charisma has been an integral part of leaders from like...always, as long as there is substance to support the image.


Well, being as most legislatures do not vote on death penalty issues often...I'm pretty sure all you can do is take his word on this. Not to mention he has missed what...75 % of his votes in Congress? Impressive record for a first term senator. :cwink:

Obama's most significant contribution has been his legislative battles against the death penalty, and against in the criminal justice system. In Illinois, it's been a series of shocking exonerations of innocent people who are on death row. He was involved very intimately in drafting and passing legislation that requires the video taping of police interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. And he also was one of the co-sponsors of this very comprehensive reform or the death penalty system in Illinois, which many people say may trigger the retreat on the death penalty in many other states.

:huh: we were talking about this right, I really forget and are far too lazy to look back.


At anyrate though, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on most of this, as it seems to me to just be basic political differences.

that's pretty much the point of these forums, only debate can bring forth change and advancement in ideology, if we all just agreed to disagree we'd have a harder time in this earth, and I'd still be blatantly conservative.

[Lightning Strykez!]

So what do you think is the next step for him now that he's conceded the N.H. primary? Obviously this thing is a lot more split than ever now, but I wonder how South Carolina will fare with him?

[The Senator]

So what do you think is the next step for him now that he's conceded the N.H. primary? Obviously this thing is a lot more split than ever now, but I wonder how South Carolina will fare with him?

I think he'll place first in South Carolina. He's been ahead there for some time, and the last I read, he held almost a 20-point lead over Clinton. My concern is whether he can win any of the later states, like Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California. Those states are swimming in delegates, and he's down between 15-20 points in each state despite his victory in Iowa. He needs to win big in South Carolina, and then steal Nevada from Hillary if he hopes to do well on February 5.

[Matt]

I think he'll place first in South Carolina. He's been ahead there for some time, and the last I read, he held almost a 20-point lead over Clinton. My concern is whether he can win any of the later states, like Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California. Those states are swimming in delegates, and he's down between 15-20 points in each state despite his victory in Iowa. He needs to win big in South Carolina, and then steal Nevada from Hillary if he hopes to do well on February 5.

Well, if we learned anything tonight, it is that polls lie.

As for PA, I don't think he needs to worry about it as PA shouldn't be relevant. The race should be decided on Super Tuesday. If not, it still should be decided before PA (which is one of the late states). But Super Tuesday does not bode well for Obama, in my opinion. He will be facing New York, California, and New Jersey. All of which Hillary is doing fairly well in and all of which are heavy hitters.

[xwolverine2]

OMG Obama Mania is making Hillary cry.

WTF????

MVlwH7-05Fk

she didnt really cry though.. i dont see what the big fuss is......

she eats pizza... thats a plus lol

[The Senator]

Well, if we learned anything tonight, it is that polls lie.

As for PA, I don't think he needs to worry about it as PA shouldn't be relevant. The race should be decided on Super Tuesday. If not, it still should be decided before PA (which is one of the late states). But Super Tuesday does not bode well for Obama, in my opinion. He will be facing New York, California, and New Jersey. All of which Hillary is doing fairly well in and all of which are heavy hitters.

For some reason, I thought PA was on Super Tuesday. That's what I was referring to-- Super Tuesday in general. Sorry about that.

[Matt]

For some reason, I thought PA was on Super Tuesday. That's what I was referring to-- Super Tuesday in general. Sorry about that.

Nope. Us Pennsylvanians like having our vote not matter. Takes a lot of the pressure off :csad:

[R0rschach]

Wow Hillary won.
What an amazing race.


Bill on the other hand went out on a lim.

YLDx4NZr2u4

vOe01_ww29U

[Movies205]

Well, if we learned anything tonight, it is that polls lie.

I thought the pundit on CNN brought up a good point which was that it seems the poll weren't exactly wrong but there was a massive influx of last minute voters, which if anythign is really an indicator how close this election is. We have 4 different front-runners from the last 2 primaries.

As I said in another thread, Obama is a really good public speaker however he's playing up America's naiviety and nostalgia. This idea of what makes America great and yada yada makes for a good movie but it doesn't run a country. This idea of hard change, good will, etc didn't work the first time when Carter got elected, it isn't going work now. Also am I the only one slighty taken aback at how experience is seen as a con?

[The Senator]

I thought the pundit on CNN brought up a good point which was that it seems the poll weren't exactly wrong but there was a massive influx of last minute voters, which if anythign is really an indicator how close this election is. We have 4 different front-runners from the last 2 primaries.

As I said in another thread, Obama is a really good public speaker however he's playing up America's naiviety and nostalgia. This idea of what makes America great and yada yada makes for a good movie but it doesn't run a country. This idea of hard change, good will, etc didn't work the first time when Carter got elected, it isn't going work now. Also am I the only one slighty taken aback at how experience is seen as a con?

I don't know if it's experience so much as her personality and what she represents. Honestly, I supported her for the longest time, but if you asked me what she stood for, I couldn't tell you. Many people within the party find her incredibly abrasive and stale, and are looking for the most radical departure from Bush's politics. To most of her opponents, she's just a continuation of the type of politics which have divided this country for decades. But for me, I don't know what it is she stands for or wants to get done in her eight years in office, and that's the big thing which made me decide not to outright support her anymore (though I wouldn't be disappointed if she won the nomination).

[Matt]

I thought the pundit on CNN brought up a good point which was that it seems the poll weren't exactly wrong but there was a massive influx of last minute voters, which if anythign is really an indicator how close this election is. We have 4 different front-runners from the last 2 primaries.

As I said in another thread, Obama is a really good public speaker however he's playing up America's naiviety and nostalgia. This idea of what makes America great and yada yada makes for a good movie but it doesn't run a country. This idea of hard change, good will, etc didn't work the first time when Carter got elected, it isn't going work now. Also am I the only one slighty taken aback at how experience is seen as a con?

It absolutely shocks me. Especially since the people saying that now, are the same ones who tried to use it against Bush in 2000. The entire "Experience is bad" thing is worse than Bush supporters entire "Kerry's intelligence is a bad thing" angle.

[Movies205]

I don't know if it's experience so much as her personality and what she represents. Honestly, I supported her for the longest time, but if you asked me what she stood for, I couldn't tell you. Many people within the party find her incredibly abrasive and stale, and are looking for the most radical departure from Bush's politics. To most of her opponents, she's just a continuation of the type of politics which have divided this country for decades. But for me, I don't know what it is she stands for or wants to get done in her eight years in office, and that's the big thing which made me decide not to outright support her anymore (though I wouldn't be disappointed if she won the nomination).

I wasn't even refering to Clinton specifically but in general. Personally I hope Hilary wins so the republicans win the election :up: But the fact that experience in general is now a bad thing. That the people that have actually try working with the system are somehow not qualified because they got their hands dirty while some newcomer makes ridiculous claims.

[Movies205]

It absolutely shocks me. Especially since the people saying that now, are the same ones who tried to use it against Bush in 2000. The entire "Experience is bad" thing is worse than Bush supporters entire "Kerry's intelligence is a bad thing" angle.

We are pawns of the media.

Just earlier today I was talking to my friend's father (So he's in his late 40s or early 50s) and he was going off about how McCain hasn't gotten anything done in office and we need someone who won't compromise and will bring about change ala Mitt Romney. But I just sat there thinking; Christ this whole big change thing was brought into effect by the media and has now has taken on a life of its own. Now don't mistake what I'm saying, I don't believe the media people concocted this. This idea of "change" is simply a manifestation of what the people of this nation and it stems from the nation inability to accept the reality of a situation and accept responsibility for it.

People don't want to hear the truth; they don't want to hear that real change takes many years and can only begin with the next president. They don't want hear that a president real job is to lead congress, not to be a dictator. That the bigger issue at stake here is a country that has really no understanding of its own political system or for that matter even its own economical system. Anytime anyone says the rich should pay for things or pay more, I can almost certainty probably predict they don't fully understand capitalism.

[The Senator]

I wasn't even refering to Clinton specifically but in general. Personally I hope Hilary wins so the republicans win the election :up: But the fact that experience in general is now a bad thing. That the people that have actually try working with the system are somehow not qualified because they got their hands dirty while some newcomer makes ridiculous claims.

I understand completely. Like I said in the New Hampshire thread, my top guy was Evan Bayh. He was the two-term governor of Indiana, and is in his third Senate term. That man has tons of experience. He knows how Congress works, and has executive experience. But he decided not to run because he couldn't compete with two rockstars. Same thing with Russ Feingold. He's a three term Senator with a record which reflects what he stands for. He's like an experienced, Jewish Obama, though with extra baggage. But again, he didn't run because of name recognition (or at least that's what one of my professors, who works in his Senate office, said). It's depressing, really.

[Matt]

We are pawns of the media.

Just earlier today I was talking to my friend's father (So he's in his late 40s or early 50s) and he was going off about how McCain hasn't gotten anything done in office and we need someone who won't compromise and will bring about change ala Mitt Romney. But I just sat there thinking; Christ this whole big change thing was brought into effect by the media and has now has taken on a life of its own. Now don't mistake what I'm saying, I don't believe the media people concocted this. This idea of "change" is simply a manifestation of what the people of this nation and it stems from the nation inability to accept the reality of a situation and accept responsibility for it.

People don't want to hear the truth; they don't want to hear that real change takes many years and can only begin with the next president. They don't want hear that a president real job is to lead congress, not to be a dictator. That the bigger issue at stake here is a country that has really no understanding of its own political system or for that matter even its own economical system. Anytime anyone says the rich should pay for things or pay more, I can almost certainty probably predict they don't fully understand capitalism.

Well put :up:

[hippie_hunter]

Wow Hillary won.
What an amazing race.


Bill on the other hand went out on a lim.

YLDx4NZr2u4

vOe01_ww29U

Oh Bill, your wife may be a frigid ice b***h, but I love you so dearly :heart:

[Matt]

I understand completely. Like I said in the New Hampshire thread, my top guy was Evan Bayh. He was the two-term governor of Indiana, and is in his third Senate term. That man has tons of experience. He knows how Congress works, and has executive experience. But he decided not to run because he couldn't compete with two rockstars. Same thing with Russ Feingold. He's a three term Senator with a record which reflects what he stands for. He's like an experienced, Jewish Obama, though with extra baggage. But again, he didn't run because of name recognition (or at least that's what one of my professors, who works in his Senate office, said). It's depressing, really.

The media has created two rock star candidates in Obama and Hillary. It is why no legitiment candidate outside of Richardson entered this race and why the primary candidates are such a pathetic bunch. You just can't compete with the media imagine created for Hillary and Obama.

[Movies205]

I understand completely. Like I said in the New Hampshire thread, my top guy was Evan Bayh. He was the two-term governor of Indiana, and is in his third Senate term. That man has tons of experience. He knows how Congress works, and has executive experience. But he decided not to run because he couldn't compete with two rockstars. Same thing with Russ Feingold. He's a three term Senator with a record which reflects what he stands for. He's like an experienced, Jewish Obama, though with extra baggage. But again, he didn't run because of name recognition (or at least that's what one of my professors, who works in his Senate office, said). It's depressing, really.

And this is exactly what I'm refering to in my previous post. We live in the information age yet more people would want to google how to beat king koopa* then learn about canidates. Hell watch any of the news pundits, how much coverage is given to there actual stances on issues? Instead we're treated commentary coverage that could be equivocated to that of a football game. And "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves."

*Whoever gets the popculture reference, gets a free digital cookie! :)

[Matt]

Its interesting to note, that Huckabee has been running his campaign for over a year...and he really gets his first ounce of attention in the media over a joke ad with Chuck Norris. Notice how desperate they are to create these "rock star" candidates? There was no stand out candidate, so they jumped all over that little bit that they had.

[jaguarr]

And this is exactly what I'm refering to in my previous post. We live in the information age yet more people would want to google how to beat king koopa* then learn about canidates. Hell watch any of the news pundits, how much coverage is given to there actual stances on issues? Instead we're treated commentary coverage that could be equivocated to that of a football game. And "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves."

*Whoever gets the popculture reference, gets a free digital cookie! :)

Since when is Shakespeare "pop culture"? :huh:

jag

[Movies205]

Since when is Shakespeare "pop culture"? :huh:

jag

It wasn't shakespeare that I was refering to :cwink:

[jaguarr]

It wasn't shakespeare that I was refering to :cwink:

Ahh. Well, then, your pop culture reference is in turn making a reference to Shakespeare's "Julius Ceasar", which is where the original line came from. I guess I'm just too OG for your reference, homie. ;)

jag

[bored]

Right now, nothing is really avaliable in a practical sense. Most hybrids, when you factor in the additional cost of owning a hybrid, shows no real benefits to the consumers pocket. Granted, the enviromental benefits are there, but they are not THAT great of an impact. And again, if he is so worried about the average man...why did he write a letter to George Bush in support of keeping a .54 cent per gallon tax on gas? The only ones being hurt by that are middle and lower class citizens.

This one intrigued me. You concede that nothing else is practical right now, yet you criticize him for supporting the best thing available? I don't see how Obama can really be faulted for that.

[Movies205]

Ahh. Well, then, your pop culture reference is in turn making a reference to Shakespeare's "Julius Ceasar", which is where the original line came from. I guess I'm just too OG for your reference, homie. ;)

jag

Um no ;) Follow the asterick, it's on the King Koopa line which is refering to Episode 86 of "Boy Meets World" "Quiz Show", plot as follows:

"The producers of a dull but prestigious academic bowl sense a hit after Cory, Shawn and Topanga become star contestants by enlivening the show with their humor and pop culture knowledge. But Mr. Feeny concludes that today's modern world puts entertainment before education when the show's newfound popularity causes it to change its questions from brainy to brainless."

The line about King Koopa is taken from that episode and was originally said by Mr. Feeny. :)

I threw in the rather trite Shakespeare quote because quite frankly it's awesome but if I had to pick a favorite Shakespeare play it'd be Macbeth. Why you ask? Because instead of waiting 3 or 4 bloody acts to do something, he does it in the first as well as being one of the most dynamic characters in literary history :up:

[Matt]

This one intrigued me. You concede that nothing else is practical right now, yet you criticize him for supporting the best thing available? I don't see how Obama can really be faulted for that.

1) Because he seems to want to settle on this impractical, short term solution.

2) Battery powered hybirds AREN'T readily avaliable. They are more avaliable than say a corn oil car or a hydro car...but they are not accessible by the public, nor will they be for many years. So why push a short term solution that is not even readily avaliable in favor of aiding in more heavy research to a permenant solution (corn oil, hydrogen, etc).

3) You still haven't addressed my point on the ethanol tarriff that he so strongly supports.

[jaguarr]

Um no ;) Follow the asterick, it's on the King Koopa line which is refering to Episode 86 of "Boy Meets World" "Quiz Show", plot as follows:

"The producers of a dull but prestigious academic bowl sense a hit after Cory, Shawn and Topanga become star contestants by enlivening the show with their humor and pop culture knowledge. But Mr. Feeny concludes that today's modern world puts entertainment before education when the show's newfound popularity causes it to change its questions from brainy to brainless."

The line about King Koopa is taken from that episode and was originally said by Mr. Feeny. :)

I threw in the rather trite Shakespeare quote because quite frankly it's awesome but if I had to pick a favorite Shakespeare play it'd be Macbeth. Why you ask? Because instead of waiting 3 or 4 bloody acts to do something, he does it in the first as well as being one of the most dynamic characters in literary history :up:

I never watched "Boy Meets World", so again....I guess I'm just too OG for your reference. :D

As for Ol' Willy, I'm a fan of his comedies like "A Midsummer Night's Dream" , "Two Gentlemen Of Verona" and "The Taming Of The Shrew" but I do love "Macbeth", "Othello" and "Hamlet" as well. :up:

jag

[Matt]

Jag and Movies are accomplishing the impossible...making the political forum even geekier :cwink:

[jaguarr]

Jag and Movies are accomplishing the impossible...making the political forum even geekier :cwink:

I wish for you to sit through a middle school production of "Titus Andronicus" for your treacherous comments. :cmad:

jag

[Movies205]

I wish for you to sit through a middle school production of "Titus Andronicus" for your treacherous comments. :cmad:

jag

Try Twevlth Night, it's worse especially at a Catholic Highschool :(

[jaguarr]

Try Twevlth Night, it's worse especially at a Catholic Highschool :(

Yeah, that one would be pretty bad, too. Perhaps a double-feature for ol' Matty, then? :hehe:

jag

[Movies205]

Yeah, that one would be pretty bad, too. Perhaps a double-feature for ol' Matty, then? :hehe:

jag

:up: :up:

[Steve Rogers]

*Whoever gets the popculture reference, gets a free digital cookie! :)Super Mario Bros. Now where's my cookie?

[Movies205]

God-damnit did no one else grow up with Boy Meets World? Didn't no root for Corey Matthews to take Topanga's V-Card? :cmad:

~I like how the a "Boy Meets World" comment shows more affirmation then any Obama quote :up:

[Matt]

Corey Matthews popped many-a-cherries. Unfortunately, all of those scenes were deleted :csad:

[jaguarr]

Super Mario Bros. Now where's my cookie?

He....said where the reference was from already? :huh:

jag

[Steve Rogers]

How did Obama mania become Boy Meets World mania?

[Steve Rogers]

He....said where the reference was from already? :huh:

jag
Yeah but I didn't read that post, so I still win.

[Spider-Bite]

He also wants to eliminate the tax loop holes that create incentives for shipping jobs overseas.

he is a far left democrat. Matt says that Obama has only taken three positions but in one of these threads he lists Obamas positoins which he disagrees with on like 20 issues, however many of those positions listed are not accurate. Those are the positions put out there by those smear emails going on about his religion and church and stuff.

Most likely put out there by the Hillary camp. It's a shame that so many people believed them.

[Venom'sDad]

Matt says that Obama has only taken three positions but in one of these threads he lists Obamas positoins which he disagrees with on like 20 issues,

:applaud Exactly my point about Matt, says one thing to disguise another, the proof is in the pudding.

What is a shame, people who actually believe he has not release a detail plan on what he would like to do and how to do it; yet, comment on, that his plan is no different than hillary's.... go figure; yet again, her supporters berate and scold him, but say nothing about hillary. Downright laughable. :ikyn

[The Senator]

He also wants to eliminate the tax loop holes that create incentives for shipping jobs overseas.

he is a far left democrat. Matt says that Obama has only taken three positions but in one of these threads he lists Obamas positoins which he disagrees with on like 20 issues, however many of those positions listed are not accurate. Those are the positions put out there by those smear emails going on about his religion and church and stuff.

Most likely put out there by the Hillary camp. It's a shame that so many people believed them.

Let it be known that Obama was the first to throw mud at Hillary. He and his supporters should have known what would come next.

[Spider-Bite]

Let it be known that Obama was the first to throw mud at Hillary. He and his supporters should have known what would come next.


Obama didn't send out emails trying to convince the american people that Hillary was in cahoots with terrorist after being raised by terrorists and that Alquida is trying to infiltrate the American government by putting one of their own into the High Office.

[The Senator]

Obama didn't send out emails trying to convince the american people that Hillary was in cahoots with terrorist after being raised by terrorists and that Alquida is trying to infiltrate the American government by putting one of their own into the High Office.

Hillary Clinton didn't do that, a few of her staffers did. There is a big difference between what a candidate does and what someone working for her campaign does. She has thousands of people working for her Presidential campaign, at all levels, and like any job, for any organization, some people were hired who lack tact and the ability to use common-sense judgment. If I remember correctly, the staffers who did that were promptly fired, and she publicly apologized for what had been said in those emails.

Also, if you're insinuating that her campaign sent those emails to everyone, think again. I'm on her list serve, both as a supporter and as a volunteer, and I have never received any of those emails which made headlines. They were between staff and advisers-- that's all.

[Dark Vigilante]

Yep, who's to say that Nixon would not have handled things better than Kennedy did during his term? Because of his appearance in the debate, he ended up losing. That is the biggest reason why I understand why Obama is winning, his charisma.

I just imagined Nixon ordering the Air Force to bomb the missiles in Cuba.

Im scared. :csad:

[Varient]

Hillary Clinton didn't do that, a few of her staffers did. There is a big difference between what a candidate does and what someone working for her campaign does. She has thousands of people working for her Presidential campaign, at all levels, and like any job, for any organization, some people were hired who lack tact and the ability to use common-sense judgment. If I remember correctly, the staffers who did that were promptly fired, and she publicly apologized for what had been said in those emails.

Also, if you're insinuating that her campaign sent those emails to everyone, think again. I'm on her list serve, both as a supporter and as a volunteer, and I have never received any of those emails which made headlines. They were between staff and advisers-- that's all.

(Sad Smile)
So,..... As long as she personally didn't do the dirt,... but it was done by someone who was trying to represent her,.. under her banner,.. in her lil party trying to get her elected,... then it is okay?

Interesting how some peoples minds work.

You split hairs saying that she didn't do it first - because she removed the people in her organization who did it from their original positions WHO did do it first?

Man,... Politics 101.

Like I said - Intereesting.

[Kelly]

I believe the same thing has happened in Barak's campaign before as well...

Workers in campaigns are ALL human, and they open their mouths some at a constant rate.....They seem to be doing it alot in these campaigns....its just a part of it.

[Mr Sparkle]

Lack of experience and lack of a record isn't necessarily as helpful for a candidate as you seem to believe...

Exactly - so he isn't a political newcomer as you try to paint him as. He is a life long politician which means he probably is as corrupt as any of them. Also, it is worth noting that his attendence policy while in the Senate is laughable. I mean its incredibly absurd.

whahuh?

[The Senator]

(Sad Smile)
So,..... As long as she personally didn't do the dirt,... but it was done by someone who was trying to represent her,.. under her banner,.. in her lil party trying to get her elected,... then it is okay?

I didn't say that it was okay under any circumstances, and it isn't. But, what Spider-Bite implied was that the emails were ordered by Hillary, and that they were sent to everyone. Hillary didn't order this, nor did the emails get sent to her supporters. They were sent by a few ignorant advisers who should have known better. Had they been sent to her supporters, under her official letterhead, to everyone on her campaign's listservs, then yes, there would be a bigger problem. But that wasn't the situation, and saying that she personally called Obama a terrorist or a Muslim or whatever is completely exaggerated and ill-informed.

Interesting how some peoples minds work.

I think the same thing sometimes.

You split hairs saying that she didn't do it first - because she removed the people in her organization who did it from their original positions WHO did do it first?

Obama did sling the mud first, blaming her for taking money from special interests, admiring the status quo, and similar, stupid attacks like that. If I remember correctly, she didn't retaliate until months later, and those emails-- which I stress were sent between a few staff members and advisers only-- weren't circulated until late November/ early December. And it you're trying to make some badass point about how she must have ordered them because it's her campaign, you are really grasping for straws, because that obviously wasn't what happened.

Regardless of all that, my original point had nothing to do with the emails. Obama threw the mud first. Hillary retaliated, making charges on his experience... and sometimes, she didn't even have to say anything to prove her point. The best instance of this I saw in this campaign was during one of the debates, two weeks after Hillary's gaffe over Eliot Spitzer's plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Obama, who spent a good two minutes attacking Hillary for not sticking with a position, couldn't come up with his own position. He and John Edwards essentially tag-teamed throughout the campaign, making attacks against the Clinton campaign, and the first time I saw her address those two by name was during that debate. Obama was guilty of firing the first shot, not Hillary or her staff, and he got a taste of his own medicine by the time that debate was done.

Everyone who says Obama is not your typical politician ought to take a closer look at his campaign. It's waist-deep in mudslinging, gladhanding and excuses. Just because he can emphasize certain parts in his sentences doesn't mean he's a revolutionary candidate. He knows politics, he's been in politics for years... it's amazing how some people can't see it. I'm not the anti-Obama poster, but really, people who want to vote for him because he embodies something "new" and "different" need to realize that he also embodies everything he's against.

[Mr Sparkle]

(Sad Smile)
So,..... As long as she personally didn't do the dirt,... but it was done by someone who was trying to represent her,.. under her banner,.. in her lil party trying to get her elected,... then it is okay?


well, to be fair, it's pretty much like Obama did for his own campaign.
he started off brilliantly but fell into the game, mostly due to Clinton's tactics.
in the end, there's really very little that separates these two now, sadly.
they are both people with good ideas and good intentions that SOLD themselves.

[Venom'sDad]

Seriously, people are trying to put Obama in the same class as hillary... no principle, lact of tact & class, insincere, and deceitful... by saying no difference, they both have good intentions, etc. No, she has no good intentions and their is a tremedous difference. You know it, I know it, and most of Americans know it.

Try again.

[The Senator]

Seriously, people are trying to put Obama in the same class as hillary... no principle, lact of tact & class, insincere, and deceitful... by saying no difference, they both have good intentions, etc. No, she has no good intentions and their is a tremedous difference. You know it, I know it, and most of Americans know it.

Try again.

They are in the same class, because-- and I emphasize this point--

They're both politicians

If you honestly think that Obama is any different because he can make a few inspiring stump speeches, think again. Saying that Hillary doesn't have any good intentions is as baseless as saying Obama will team up with Osama bin Laden to take down America because he's a Muslim. It's just nonsense. If you believe he is some kind of great reformer, fine. But the chances of him radically reforming the system are slim to none. His campaign isn't any different than any of his opponents on both sides of the aisle. He's running on a message, wooing supporters, making promises and slinging mud. Obama is a politician, end of story, and to think that he's some sort of New Jesus makes me question the sanity of some of his supporters.

[Kelly]

Seriously, people are trying to put Obama in the same class as hillary... no principle, lact of tact & class, insincere, and deceitful... by saying no difference, they both have good intentions, etc. No, she has no good intentions and their is a tremedous difference. You know it, I know it, and most of Americans know it.

Try again.

Please don't speak for "most" because it is, in fact, your opinion....now I'm all for you having your opinion.....except when you think you are speaking for the majority....

[Venom'sDad]

Nope, that is fact. People are doing this. Take your blinders off. :rolleyes:

[Kelly]

Nope, that is fact. People are doing this. Take your blinders off. :rolleyes:

*sighs* whatever Ven.......go argue over there with that fence post....:yay:

[The Senator]

Nope, that is fact. People are doing this. Take your blinders off. :rolleyes:

:Sigh:

Serenity now...

[Varient]

around and around.

And I still can't decide because ALL the canidates have issues outside of whether or not I believe they will do as they say.

Some of the stuff they want - I can't see happening w/o concequence.

"Terrorist Hit Squads?"
"Bring ALL US troops home?"

(((Shiver)))

[Spider-Bite]

well, to be fair, it's pretty much like Obama did for his own campaign.
he started off brilliantly but fell into the game, mostly due to Clinton's tactics.
in the end, there's really very little that separates these two now, sadly.
they are both people with good ideas and good intentions that SOLD themselves.

Correction Hillary sold serself to lobbyists and then she sold a fake version of herself to the voters, while Barack Obama sold the true image of himself to the voters and the voters only. Doesn't even hide the fact that he used marijuana and coccaine back in high school.

And on foreign policy there is a great deal that seperates these two. Whether it's Iraq or Iran, there is a great deal. Hillary is barely a leftist on foreign policy, and Barack Obama is a man of peace.

[Spider-Bite]

Seriously, people are trying to put Obama in the same class as hillary... no principle, lact of tact & class, insincere, and deceitful... by saying no difference, they both have good intentions, etc. No, she has no good intentions and their is a tremedous difference. You know it, I know it, and most of Americans know it.

Try again.

I believe that she has good intentions, but her path has been distracted and compromised by lobbyists and her obsession with being President that she has held onto for the last 20 years.

She would sell her soul, beliefs, and her positions to get that job. However the same can be said about almost any politician.

I believe it would be inaccurate to describe Barack Obama that way. I think he's lying when he says he's against gay marriage, but I do not hold it against him, as I would not expect him to be stupid enough to hand the election on a silver platter to the Republican nominee, when saying that wont have any bearing on what actually happens with regard to gay marriage anyways.

Also a few weeks back he hinted that he supports it. While talking about republicans and fear mongering he brought up Islam and then brought up gay marriage and said "Republicans want you to be afraid that gay people are going to get married and that somehow that's going to effect mine or your life, but it's not."

I think it was pretty clear from that statement, how feels about it.

[The Senator]

I believe it would be inaccurate to describe Barack Obama that way. I think he's lying when he says he's against gay marriage, but I do not hold it against him, as I would not expect him to be stupid enough to hand the election on a silver platter to the Republican nominee, when saying that wont have any bearing on what actually happens with regard to gay marriage anyways.

Also a few weeks back he hinted that he supports it. While talking about republicans and fear mongering he brought up Islam and then brought up gay marriage and said "Republicans want you to be afraid that gay people are going to get married and that somehow that's going to effect mine or your life, but it's not."

I think it was pretty clear from that statement, how feels about it.

If Obama is such an honest candidate, then why won't he just come out and say that he supports gay marriage? See, once he starts acting like a politician, people start making excuses for him. You can't say that he secretly supports gay marriage, but he doesn't outright say it because he doesn't want to lose the election, only to turn around and say he's the "change candidate." People made the same excuses for John Kerry when he ran in 2004. Once again, I stress my point:

Barack Obama is a politician. He lies like every other politician and strategizes like every other politician, simply to get elected

His supporters need to lay off Hillary, claiming she's just "another politician," considering the person they support is just like her on so many fronts.

[hippie_hunter]

Correction Hillary sold serself to lobbyists and then she sold a fake version of herself to the voters, while Barack Obama sold the true image of himself to the voters and the voters only. Doesn't even hide the fact that he used marijuana and coccaine back in high school.

And on foreign policy there is a great deal that seperates these two. Whether it's Iraq or Iran, there is a great deal. Hillary is barely a leftist on foreign policy, and Barack Obama is a man of peace.

I feel that Obama's weakest point is foreign policy. He just comes off as too naive in my eyes. Yeah peace is great and it most certainly needs to be promoted but a certain amount of a hawkish tone needs to be in American foreign policy. Just nowhere near the amount that the Bush Administration does it.

[SoulManX]

Bobcat Johnson criticizes Obama


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_johnson

[Spider-Bite]

If Obama is such an honest candidate, then why won't he just come out and say that he supports gay marriage? See, once he starts acting like a politician, people start making excuses for him. You can't say that he secretly supports gay marriage, but he doesn't outright say it because he doesn't want to lose the election, only to turn around and say he's the "change candidate." People made the same excuses for John Kerry when he ran in 2004. Once again, I stress my point:

Barack Obama is a politician. He lies like every other politician and strategizes like every other politician, simply to get elected

His supporters need to lay off Hillary, claiming she's just "another politician," considering the person they support is just like her on so many fronts.

He's trying to be President so he can change things. If he came out and said he supported gay marriage he wouldn't be able to change anything, including gay marriage rights. The President can't really do much to make gay marriage get legalized any faster than it otherwise will.

And technically he got off without lying, as he's never actually said he's against gay marriage. He says "I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

He's 45 years old. His parents were probably against gay marriage so he probably was "raised to believe" that. He never actually confirmed he believed it, and he does not support a constitutional ammendmant. As well he openly supports ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the military.

[Spider-Bite]

I feel that Obama's weakest point is foreign policy. He just comes off as too naive in my eyes. Yeah peace is great and it most certainly needs to be promoted but a certain amount of a hawkish tone needs to be in American foreign policy. Just nowhere near the amount that the Bush Administration does it.

At the time it was quite controversial, the remarks he made about Pakistan. And he has confirmed that if necessary he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb or destroying Israel, but he also said there is no reason we can't say that face to face at the negotiating table.

Obama's strongest point is foreign policy. Originally he was criticized by republicans and democrats alike for saying that if Pakistan doesn't step up it's game on hunting down Alquida hiding along it's Afghanistan border, he will deploy U.S. troops to do the job, against Mussarhaf's wishes and protest.

Now everybody says they agree with him.

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war." Barack Obama

[The Senator]

He's trying to be President so he can change things. If he came out and said he supported gay marriage he wouldn't be able to change anything, including gay marriage rights. The President can't really do much to make gay marriage get legalized any faster than it otherwise will.

I strongly disagree. If he's about bringing change to the country, then he should also bring change to presidential politics as well. If he's secretly for gay marriage, then what good does that do? Everyone who supports their candidate on the Democratic side says that theirs secretly supports gay marriage, or wouldn't do anything to prohibit it. Well, if Obama is a change sort of guy, doesn't it make sense that he'd just come out and say that he supports gay marriage, rather than beat around the bush and toss a few loose hints here and there?

And technically he got off without lying, as he's never actually said he's against gay marriage. He says "I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

And that makes it better how? If I was to say, "technically, Hillary Clinton didn't vote to authorize the war we are fighting in Iraq today, she voted to authorize the war based on evidence which suggested Saddam Hussein was a threat and that he had weapons etc." you would say that I was wrong, and call her a war monger who hates America and wants to murder thousands of additional troops.

He didn't lie; he sneaked around answering the question, which again, is something that skilled politicians do so they don't have to take responsibility when their comments come back and bite them in the ass.

He's 45 years old. His parents were probably against gay marriage so he probably was "raised to believe" that. He never actually confirmed he believed it, and he does not support a constitutional ammendmant. As well he openly supports ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the military.

I believe every Democrat running supports ending DADT, and I also believe none of them support the Federal Marriage Amendment. His age has nothing to do with this argument, it's whether or not he is courageous enough to take a stand and fight for change like everyone says he does. When he cowers in the corner and says the same thing you hear coming out of Hillary or Edwards's mouths, then you have to wonder what sort of change he really represents.

He embodies youth and charisma, but from what I can tell, he has very few new ideas, and doesn't really have a battle plan for installing the change everyone says he wants to implement. He's a politician down to the core.

[The Senator]

Looks like Obama isn't so-anti lobbyist afterall. He allows state-based lobbyists to donate money to his campaigns. Furthermore, several prominent lobbyists-- such as former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)-- not only support his candidacy, but a pharmaceutical lobbyist actually chaired his New Hampshire campaign:

MSNBC

Though Sen. Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists as previously reported by First Read.

Sen. Obama's co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others.

Newsday

Anti-Lobbyist Obama enlists NH Lobbyist

Barack Obama has backhandedly slapped Hillary Rodham Clinton for accepting contributions from lobbyists and PACs, eschewing cash from both groups because he doesn’t want to be beholden to special interests. So it was with great interest that we read in the Boston Globe that BHO has enlisted New Hampshire lobbyist Jim Demers (who represents trial lawyers, firefighters and a major video poker/slot machine vendor, according to his firm’s Website) to be one of his New Hamsphire co-chairs.

Demers has already helped Obama organize events in the Granite State and has helped establish his organization.

In April, Obama refunded about $50,000 in lobbyist contributions. It’s not clear if Demers’ $2,300 was among the refunds. (His name isn’t on Obama’s refunds list because the campaign is only rejecting cash from federal lobbyists -- an interesting ethical hair-split).

Even if he refunded Demers’ check – and we have no reason to believe Demers has anything but the purest motives for joining the campaign -- the hiring raises questions. What good is returning a few grand from a lobbyist if that lobbyist is going to have unfettered access to the candidate as a volunteer?


Huffington Post
Manchester, New Hampshire-- Sen. Barack Obama was criticized by his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton for having a registered lobbyist as his New Hampshire co-chair even as he denounced the lobbying industry.

The exchange demonstrates that even on the Democratic side - where talk of ethics reform is a stump speech staple - no one is 100 percent pure…
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is benefiting from the support of well-connected Washington lobbyists even though he has prohibited his campaign from accepting contributions from them and political action committees (PACs).

While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help.

Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: "I would imagine that it's as large as the Clinton list," in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.

Other K Street players working to build momentum for Obama are former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young.

In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs.

Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

And in a clever legislative move, Obama may have co-sponsored a bill which forbids Congressmen and Senators from having dinner with lobbyists... but I bet he didn't mention that members of Congress are still allowed to hold meetings with lobbyists, as long as they are standing at all times.

ABC News
ABC News found caterers working overtime as once again lobbyists spared no expense to entertain members of Congress and their staffs. Under new congressional ethics laws, lobbyists can spend all they want on holiday parties as long as everyone is standing up.

"You can no longer eat sitting down," Ellen Miller, co-founder and executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to making government more accessible on the Internet, said. "There really has to be finger food. I think you can eat food that's on a toothpick, but if it requires a fork or knife, forget it."

And ABC News found plentiful spreads of catered food and well-stocked bars at elegant locations all over the capital -- the kind of expense only the well-funded can afford.

"There is no way we can compete with that kind of money and that kind of influence-peddling," Wiles said.

[Varient]

(chuckle)

COLUMBIA, S.C., Jan. 13 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her recent remarks on civil rights Sunday, as Sen. Barack Obama weighed in on the controversy for the first time, describing Clinton's earlier comments about the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. as "unfortunate" and "ill-advised."

Obama had previously tried to sidestep direct engagement in the debate over race. But the recent controversy has touched a nerve with many African Americans, including some sympathetic to the Clintons, and Obama chose to address it Sunday.

The primary source of the debate is a comment Monday from the New York Democrat: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said, adding that "it took a president to get it done." Critics read that as playing down King's importance in the civil rights movement. Clinton said Sunday that the Obama campaign was "deliberately distorting this."

Asked whether he had taken offense to Clinton's remarks, the Illinois Democrat said he had not been the one to raise the subject.

"Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement," Obama said in a conference call with reporters. "I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

At the same time, a prominent Clinton ally, Robert L. Johnson, appeared to attempt to revive the issue of Obama's admitted past drug use.

Introducing Clinton at an event in Columbia, Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said both Clintons "have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book."

In "Dreams From My Father," Obama wrote that he used marijuana and cocaine as a young man. Johnson later tried to back away from his remarks, and the Clinton campaign issued a statement saying he was simply referring to Obama's days as a community organizer. Johnson said that to read anything else into his statement was "simply irresponsible and incorrect."

"His tortured explanation doesn't hold up against his original statement," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "And it's troubling that neither the campaign nor Senator Clinton . . . is willing to condemn it."

Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod added: "I don't see why this is so much different from what Billy Shaheen did in New Hampshire," referring to Clinton's state co-chairman. Shaheen resigned last month after suggesting that Republicans would target Obama with questions such as "Did you sell [drugs] to anyone?"

Clinton defended her remark about King, made the day before the New Hampshire primary, in a sometimes contentious appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning. She said she was responding to a speech Obama made comparing himself to both John F. Kennedy and to King, and she elaborated on her view of King's role as a change agent.

"Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement," Clinton said. "But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That's why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That's why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion's share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system."



She also complained that her remarks had been taken out of context. "And I think it is such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to, you know, misinterpret and mischaracterize what I've said," she said, at times interrupting moderator Tim Russert.

She stood by former president Bill Clinton's observation last week that the central tenet of Obama's campaign is "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," saying it referred only to Obama's Iraq war position and not his standing as a candidate. Some African American commentators have pressed her to explain her husband's statement.

Clinton argued that Obama has failed to follow up his 2002 antiwar rhetoric with votes; he voted, she said, for the same Iraq war funding that she has supported.

"Look, if you are running for president based primarily on a speech you gave in 2002 and speeches you have given since, most notably at the Democratic convention, then I think it is fair to say we need to know more beyond the words," Clinton said. "By 2004, Tim, by the summer of 2004, Senator Obama said he wasn't sure how he would have voted. And when you asked him about that, he said, well, he didn't want to say something that could have hurt our nominees, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards. Well, the fact is, he's always said he doesn't take positions for political reasons. That is a political explanation. If he was against the war in 2002, he should've strongly spoke out in 2004."

The stated purpose of the conference call in which Obama addressed Clinton's comments was to announce an endorsement from Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the latest in a series of endorsements that Obama has rolled out since his second-place finish in New Hampshire.

Later in the day, another Obama ally, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), spoke with reporters in defense of Obama's antiwar record while challenging Clinton's assertion on "Meet the Press" that the 2002 authorization vote, which Clinton supported, was intended as a means for sending inspectors back into Iraq and was not tantamount to giving President Bush a free hand to invade the country.

"Those of us voting on it that October night took it very seriously," Durbin said. The invasion of Iraq as a consequence of the vote "was a very realistic option," he said.

For the first time, former senator John Edwards (N.C.) also weighed in on a dispute that is rapidly consuming the dialogue among the top three Democratic presidential candidates in the most diverse campaign in history. All three are dueling for votes in South Carolina, where the Democratic primary is set to take place on Jan. 26 -- and where the party's electorate is about half African American.

"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign," Edwards said during an appearance at Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Sumter.

Then Edwards turned the "fairy tale" remark back on its originator, continuing: "I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Reverend Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that. Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long -- and are living in a fairy tale."

Kornblut reported from Washington. Staff writers Shailagh Murray in Washington and Peter Slevin in Nevada contributed to this report.

[The Senator]

What Hillary said was correct, albeit she should have known the media and Obama's supporters would have jumped on her the moment she said it. It did take a president to formulate a bill which then became law. Dr. King was essential for promoting advances in Civil Rights; LBJ was responsible for making them a reality. Without both of them, these gains in civil rights and liberties would never have happened for African-Americans.

The reaction and amount of media attention over this is mind-boggling, though its anything but shocking. I'd get in a very long debate over this, but I'd be accused of being racist, so I'll just let prominent African-American Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) wrap up my basic points:

Major Clinton Supporter Calls Obama Remarks "Absolutely Stupid"

(CNN) — As both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tried to lower the tension after days of charged rhetoric over race, a congressional supporter of Clinton's presidential bid called the Illinois senator's remarks attacking her over recent comments about President Lyndon Johnson and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “absolutely stupid.”

"How race got into this thing is because Obama said ‘race,’” New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, one of the highest-ranking African-Americans in Congress, said in an interview on NY1.

“But there is nothing that Hillary Clinton has said that baffles me. I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights, and the Voting Rights Act,” said Rangel. “But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid. It's absolutely dumb to infer that Doctor King, alone, passed the legislation and signed it into law."

Rangel’s remarks came in response to Sunday comments from Obama, who told an audience at a Nevada campaign event: "I am baffled by that statement by the Senator. She made an ill-advised statement about Dr. King, suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with the Civil Rights Act. For them to somehow suggest that we're interjecting race as a consequence of a statement she made, that we haven't commented on, is pretty hard to figure out."

[hippie_hunter]

Is it just me or are both Clinton and Obama acting like complete idiots on this damn race issue?

[hippie_hunter]

At the time it was quite controversial, the remarks he made about Pakistan. And he has confirmed that if necessary he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb or destroying Israel, but he also said there is no reason we can't say that face to face at the negotiating table.
I agree that the negotiating table shouldn't be taken away at all and should be the option used the most. But when he denounces his collegues for declaring the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist sponsoring group for supplying Iraqi insurgents and terrorists (which they are doing) he makes it look like diplomacy is taken it off the table when it isn't. Especially since the bill had not given Bush the authority to go into Iran. What makes it even worse is that he didn't even vote on the measure.

Obama came off as a fool and an idiot with that debate. And he comes off as a fool and an idiot every time he brings it up. Iran is a weak point for him because he doesn't know what he's talking about, just like when Mitt Romney goes off acting like the terrorists attack us because they hate our freedoms.

Obama's strongest point is foreign policy. Originally he was criticized by republicans and democrats alike for saying that if Pakistan doesn't step up it's game on hunting down Alquida hiding along it's Afghanistan border, he will deploy U.S. troops to do the job, against Mussarhaf's wishes and protest.

Now everybody says they agree with him.
Again another horrible, horrible idea from Obama. Putting U.S. troops into Pakistan right now is a horrible idea because of the extremely fragile situation it is in right now. It is on the verge of breaking down into chaos. Putting American troops onto Pakistani soil with the situation as it is now guarantees that chaos happening.

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war." Barack Obama
Now that's a great idea and I completely agree with that.

[The Senator]

Is it just me or are both Clinton and Obama acting like complete idiots on this damn race issue?

Yes, they're both acting like total morons. Hillary should have been smart enough to know that her comments would have been misconstrued; Barack Obama never should have made them into a race issue, considering they weren't about race.

The fact that both of them so desperately want to win this thing is overshadowing everything they stand for. Because of their constant bickering and accusations, they're about to tear the Democratic Party in two. If one of them wins the nomination, there will be people within the party adamantly against his/ her candidacy. We hear talk about how polarized America has become politically; well, it doesn't help when it happens within your own party.

Fan****ingtastic.

[Varient]

Is it just me or are both Clinton and Obama acting like complete idiots on this damn race issue?

It was the reason I'm laughing.

The back and forth where each is defending HARD on what they say,.. doing damage control where it wasn't needed and taking the bait from the media is sad in that I can see it,.. but people who make a living at pandering and promoting themselves do not.

Ms Clinton could've been more tackful, and Obama should have ignored the media hound that asked his opinion - frankly because there was no good response other than "Ask her what she means."

Jeez,... these two are currently in the top three running on the demo side.

I think it's time to throw and independent into the white house,.. the repubs scare me about as much,..............

[Sun_Down]

Is it just me or are both Clinton and Obama acting like complete idiots on this damn race issue?

They're acting like complete idiots when it comes to any issue pertaining to the other person. I swear, they'll destroy each other before the Republicans even get a chance.

[Memphis Slim]

Will he pull our troops out of Iraq??

I submit to you............NO! It's easy to sit on the outside and criticize any sitting President. But on the first day he gets those intelligence briefs, it's all gonna hit him like a ton of bricks. This thing is not as easy as you thought. We all think we know everything, but we don't.

And when he doesn't do it, the far left loons are gonna go crazy!

Remember ...you heard it here first.

[The Senator]

The grammar fairy says, "spelling 'here' the right way makes us take seriously everything you say."

[Apollo]

I am sure he will say he will.... but like you said its not going to be easy for him, and if it does happen it may take a long time.

[Addendum]

Will he pull our troops out of Iraq??

I submit to you............NO! It's easy to sit on the outside and critcize any sitting President. But on the first day he gets those intelligence breifs, it's all gonna hit him like a ton of bricks. This thing is not as easy as you thought. We all think we know everything, but we don't.

And when he doesn't do it, the far left loons are gonna go crazy!

Remember ...you heard it hear first.

I guess they don't make "intelligence briefs" in your size

[Mr Sparkle]

can I do a thread like this, but with a Republican candidate and the fact that Iraq won't be won in the coming weeks or even months, hell...years?
:huh:

[Venom'sDad]

Will he pull our troops out of Iraq??

I submit to you............NO! It's easy to sit on the outside and critcize any sitting President. But on the first day he gets those intelligence breifs, it's all gonna hit him like a ton of bricks. This thing is not as easy as you thought. We all think we know everything, but we don't.

And when he doesn't do it, the far left loons are gonna go crazy!

Remember ...you heard it hear first.

He wont and hillary will not pull the troops out either. Come on. :rolleyes:

[The Senator]

He wont and hillary will not pull the troops out either. Come on. :rolleyes:

If you seriously think Memphis Slim is making this thread as a way to knock Obama while supporting Hillary by proxy, then you need to get your head examined.

[MaskedManJRK]

I don't think so either. Hell, I've known this ever since Bush made a speech saying he would "talk to the canidates" to say why they should stay and then a few days later at a Democratic debate neither of the three "front-liners" could say that they could get troops out by 2012, the end of their term.

Whether it's because of legit sources or Bush putting some blackmail on the three, they'll keep the war going.

[cookiva]

You do realize that he doesnt want to pull all of the troops out of Iraq, right? The candidates that want to do that are out of the race, outside of Paul. Next time you make a thread against a candidate, how about you research the person...

[Memphis Slim]

A big reality check is on the horizon....

[Addendum]

So now celldog is on a vague "prediction" trip a la Pat Robertson, TheSumofgod, and Michael Chertoff's gut

[rdh007]

A big reality check is on the horizon....

I agree.
http://www.effectofglobalwarming.com/images/What-is-global-warming-img.jpg

[ShadowBoxing]

IMO, Obama, if he won, would be the next Jimmy Carter. Not good.

[rdh007]

So Carter's not good, but Dukakis/Kerry/Mondale/Takeyourpick is alright?

You can't get to two terms if you don't get one.

Also, I saw Matt make this argument in detail, please quote that next time.

[hippie_hunter]

So Carter's not good, but Dukakis/Kerry/Mondale/Takeyourpick is alright?

You can't get to two terms if you don't get one.

Also, I saw Matt make this argument in detail, please quote that next time.
Carter only won because Ford was connected to Nixon and he pardoned him.

[Matt]

Carter only won because Ford was connected to Nixon and he pardoned him.

Ford probably would've taken re-election were it not for pardoning Nixon.

[hippie_hunter]

Ford probably would've taken re-election were it not for pardoning Nixon.

Damn straight he would have.

[rdh007]

I disagree with you both times. Ford lost because he was half-smart.

[The Senator]

Dukakis was a joke. Mondale was a joke. John Kerry was a joke.

Jimmy Carter's presidency was a joke.

Moderate Democrats seem to fare better than ideological liberals, both in terms of winning campaigns and successful presidencies. This dates back to Harry Truman.

Truman was almost what we'd consider a Republican by today's standards. Kennedy was right-leaning. Johnson was dead center. Clinton was dead center. They are considered some of the best leaders in American history (Vietnam aside, Johnson had an excellent record as President).

Carter hated Congress, and he almost completely refused to work with them-- when both chambers were controlled by his own party. He was inexperienced, and worked as a complete Washington outsider. He had no foreign policy experience when it was most needed, when the Cold War was rising towards its second peak. We saw how great a job he did with both the oil crisis of the 1970s and the Iranian hostage crisis. He was a downright lousy president.

Since then, he has become an excellent foreign figurehead. He still says incredibly stupid things, but he's done far more good in his post-presidency than he did in his presidency.

That's why our party needs to continue to elect not only experienced candidates, but Washington "insiders." These people know how to work with Congress and abroad. Kennedy's family was rooted in Washington; he knew how to do the job. Johnson was Senate Majority Leader. He knew what Congress wanted and how to get legislation passed. Clinton was an outsider, yes, but he knew how to compromise on important legislation. That's why bills such as the Assault Weapons Ban passed.

This is why I feel Hillary Clinton is best suited for the Presidency. She's center-left and knows how the establishment works. Obama, on the other hand, is portraying himself as an outsider. He has very few important connections in Congress, and wouldn't be able to reach bipartisan compromises on bills which wouldn't appeal to the Republican party. The Clintons know how to work with Republicans, and I feel as if that benefits her.

[ShadowBoxing]

So Carter's not good, but Dukakis/Kerry/Mondale/Takeyourpick is alright?

You can't get to two terms if you don't get one.

Also, I saw Matt make this argument in detail, please quote that next time.
Carter was not good, no. He had us on food stamps by the time he left office, and was a horrible motivator (that Malase speech...ugh). I think Obama is a lot of things, but naive is one of them. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington works great on film, but in real life it doesn't have a happy ending. I'd love to see someone as idealic and ethical as Obama win one day, but I'd also like to have the assurance that once he got in office he could twist the arms of everyone else, and I don't see that in him.

Washington, honestly, doesn't like change. Obama smells like change, looks like change, and quacks like change and the minute he gets to Washington they are going to make him feel unwelcome. In order to change Washington you have to use their own rules to dismantle them. Lyndon Baines Johnson was great at this, so was Clinton, so was FDR and so was Teddy Roosevelt....Jimmy Carter was not. This is not to say all those men were bad or good Presidents, just that they understood how to get something they wanted done. As a politician you have to have convictions but you also have to be machiavellian, something Obama just doesn't strike me as at all.

[rdh007]

Truman is win. That we can agree on.

Though I'd argue that Clinton was a great Republican.

[rdh007]

So the alternative is to nominate Hillary to lose to President Huckabee? No thanks.

My only reason for supporting Edwards or Obama is that they've got a chance to win. I don't believe she will. She brings up too much bile in non-Dems.

[hippie_hunter]

I feel that McCain is better suited than Clinton.

He's more experienced than her. He's been in the Senate for over 20 years while Clinton has spent 7 years and really hasn't done anything important in the Senate. When she tried to be relevant when she was First Lady, she failed miserably.

He has a better shot of being bipartisan than her. Republicans just aren't going to want to work with Clinton. And Clinton represents the Democratic partisanship that won't work with Republicans. But McCain, he's proven that he's willing to work with Democrats.

[rdh007]

If he picks a Democrat as his running mate, you and I might agree.

[hippie_hunter]

If he picks a Democrat as his running mate, you and I might agree.

I have a feeling that McCain might choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

[rdh007]

Deal's off, bro. I said a Democrat. ;)

[hippie_hunter]

Deal's off, bro. I said a Democrat. ;)

Well Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats :oldrazz:

[The Senator]

So the alternative is to nominate Hillary to lose to President Huckabee? No thanks.

My only reason for supporting Edwards or Obama is that they've got a chance to win. I don't believe she will. She brings up too much bile in non-Dems.

Um... Huckabee won't be the nominee now that he's lost South Carolina. That was his only hope at keeping his momentum alive; now, he's completely gone.

And while I hate Joe Lieberman's stance on the war... in just about every other respect, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. He's pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, pro-choice... that's definitely liberal ideology.

[Mr Sparkle]

A big reality check is on the horizon....

I hope it's one of those big novelty checks like in game shows.
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o207/mightyjake/501st-Memorial-Presentation.jpg

[terry78]

RACIAL STEREOTYPES ARE DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN OUR CULTURE
Sat Jan 19, 7:56 PM ET

After a recent column describing Barack Obama as "a presidential candidate who happens to be black -- not a black presidential candidate," I received countless responses from readers, a handful of them odd. That odd handful declared they take no notice of superficial traits such as skin color, and they took me to task for making any reference to Obama's race.
ADVERTISEMENT

"I thought of (Obama) as a person. I did not see black or white or Hispanic or that he was a man -- I saw a person! If people really, truly want racial equality, then the first step has to be to STOP looking at skin color," wrote one reader.

"When I look at a person, the last thing I think about is skin color or heritage," wrote another.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. While I am sympathetic to any desire to get past dated and useless habits of mind -- especially the contentious politics of the color line -- that's just nonsense. None of us, black, white or brown, is colorblind.

Those readers may think they don't notice skin color, but it's just not so, says University of Washington psychology professor Anthony Greenwald, an expert on implicit biases and common stereotypes. "Even if they can't see anything out of their eyes, they're not colorblind."

That's not a condemnation, not a presumption of malicious bigotry. It's just an acknowledgment of the peculiar burdens of humanity, especially in these United States. Assumptions about race and ethnicity are so deeply embedded in our culture that we can hardly help noticing skin color.

Each of us is stuck with prejudices, and I'm using the denotative meaning here -- "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason," according to Webster's. But we don't have to be governed by them.

Cutting-edge work by Greenwald and his colleagues, who include Harvard University's Mahzarin Banaji and the University of Virginia's Brian Nosek, suggests that people can learn to put aside their biases to make rational, fact-based judgments about people who may be black or Mexican or Mormon. "To the extent that we can influence what we learn and believe, we can influence less conscious states of mind," Banaji says.

But the first step -- as in any self-help project -- is to own up to the problem. Many people don't realize they're prejudiced because, well, they really don't realize they're prejudiced. That self-knowledge is not necessarily difficult to acquire, but it's quite often difficult to accept.

Racial bigotry is a social taboo in this country, so much so that only an extremist fringe -- assorted neo-Nazis and skinheads -- admit their rank prejudices. That may explain why some volunteers who have taken Greenwald's Implicit Association Test, which uses word association to detect unconscious biases, are furious when the test shows they hold hidden negative views of black Americans.

"Some people have a concept of themselves as non-prejudiced, so anything indicating a chink in that armor is threatening," Greenwald said. But his research has also pointed out that most people simply aren't aware of their implicit assumptions.

Take the current Democratic primary, with its history-making narrative. Greenwald and colleagues modified the Implicit Association Test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit) to search for unconscious biases among Democratic voters. When asked who they planned to cast ballots for, a sample of voters reported strong support for Obama, who held a 42 percent-to-34 percent lead over Hillary Clinton among the sample, with John Edwards coming in at 12. But when the same people took the Implicit Association Test, measuring their unconscious preferences, Clinton was "the runaway winner," favored by 48 percent of them, and Obama was dead last, with 25 percent. Edwards was favored by 27 percent, according to the researchers.

And here's one finding that upends conventional wisdom: According to the test, black voters, too, held implicit biases that worked against Obama. But how could it be otherwise? Black Americans are products of the same culture as white Americans, with its myriad stereotypes of black incompetence. And black Americans have internalized many of the same stereotypes.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a day when his children would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." But that day has not yet arrived. We might hasten its dawning if we'd admit that what we see is not necessarily what we believe.

Oops! In a column about rigid voter ID laws, I mistakenly referred to the Bill of Rights in underscoring the right to vote. I knew better. The right to vote is explicit in the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

[LuiECuomo]

I see Obama as a poor presidential candidate who receives attention BECAUSE he is black, not because he would by any means be an acceptable or competent choice for the job. It's frightening that there are people in this country who would vote for others based on their gender or skin color. This is just as bad as not voting for someone for those reasons.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I think Obama would bring the forces back to America. Because with that,the country would be Democratic.

[StorminNorman]

I think Obama would bring the forces back to America. Because with that,the country would be Democratic.

:huh:

[hippie_hunter]

I think Obama would bring the forces back to America. Because with that,the country would be Democratic.

1. That statement makes no sense at all.

2. Obama has already said that he'd keep about 5,000 troops within Iraq and pull out the rest. So he won't truly bring them back.

[Matt]

1. That statement makes no sense at all.

2. Obama has already said that he'd keep about 5,000 troops within Iraq and pull out the rest. So he won't truly bring them back.

That strategy makes no sense to me at all. We currently have 200,000 troops in Iraq, give or take a few thousand. They can barely keep the country secure. With 5,000 American troops there, they will be sitting ducks for all kinds of suicide bombers. Also, when the country falls to a cou'p (and it will happen, and 5000 troops aren't enough to stop it) they will be captured and executed. Yay for Obama's strategy of sacrificing 5,000 soldiers!

[cookiva]

Yeah, I hate that type of thinking. Whats the difference. Dont pull out except for 5000 troops, as that is another 5000 sitting ducks. If you think we need to get out, get out.

[Sun_Down]

All 3 of the Democratic front-runners have said they'd withdraw the troops, so this isn't an issue that is exclusive to Obama. Hell, Clinton said tonight she'd start bringing troops home within 60 days of her inauguration.

[The Senator]

All 3 of the Democratic front-runners have said they'd withdraw the troops, so this isn't an issue that is exclusive to Obama. Hell, Clinton said tonight she'd start bringing troops home within 60 days of her inauguration.

:wow:

But she be teh Republican??????!!1!?1

[Sun_Down]

:wow:

But she be teh Republican??????!!1!?1

LOL, well she sure did come off as throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks, which is exactly the kind of politcal tactics Bush and company have been using for the last eight years.

[The Senator]

LOL, well she sure did come off as throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks, which is exactly the kind of politcal tactics Bush and company have been using for the last eight years.

Eh, you have to defend yourself against your opponents, especially when they throw the same kind of ****, or refuse to answer honest questions with honest answers.

[Rated-X]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_s_massive_conflict_of_interests

[CrypticOne]

Will he pull our troops out of Iraq??

I submit to you............NO! It's easy to sit on the outside and criticize any sitting President. But on the first day he gets those intelligence briefs, it's all gonna hit him like a ton of bricks. This thing is not as easy as you thought. We all think we know everything, but we don't.

And when he doesn't do it, the far left loons are gonna go crazy!

Remember ...you heard it here first.

I say he'll pull our troops out, but it may take time. Probably a couple months. As always, Democrats always have to clean up the messes. Thanks Bush.

[sinewave]

have they finished building the permanent u.s. military base in iraq. yet? if so, i don't see us leaving any time soon. there's too much money invested in it. richardson would have been the best candidate to initiate a significant troop withdrawal, but the media ignored him. :(

[Damiean Dark]

Does anyone think Mccain is too old??.

[hippie_hunter]

No.

[cookiva]

Does anyone think Mccain is too old??.

What does age have to do with anything??? If he is the best candidate, he is the best candidate. Plain and simple. Vote for who fits your ideals....

[Matt]

I think age and health are a big factor. Especially if he nominates some Cheney-esque nut job to balance his ticket only to die 2 years into his presidency and leave us with a man who has no business being president.

[cookiva]

And thats what I mean. Find the guys that share your ideals. Its not just about the 1 guy. You need to check out the VP candidate as well...

[Matt]

And thats what I mean. Find the guys that share your ideals. Its not just about the 1 guy. You need to check out the VP candidate as well...

Unfortunately in the primary stage, we don't have one.

[cookiva]

I know. You just have to trust that your choice in the primary does share your ideals, and in doing so, he picks someone similar to him for his VP candidate.




Or she. She picks someone who shares her ideals.

[Matt]

I know. You just have to trust that your choice in the primary does share your ideals, and in doing so, he picks someone similar to him for his VP candidate.




Or she. She picks someone who shares her ideals.

But once they have the nomination it is no longer about ideals. In fact, it is about picking someone whose ideals are the polar opposite of yours in order to "balance the ticket." Oh American elections...how far you've sunk :csad:

[cookiva]

But once they have the nomination it is no longer about ideals. In fact, it is about picking someone whose ideals are the polar opposite of yours in order to "balance the ticket." Oh American elections...how far you've sunk :csad:

Eh, the more moderate you go, the closer you get to the same ideals. Look at Clinton. The rumors circulating her on her VP choice are all moderate democrats. The further out you go is where you get the "polar opposite" kind of guys. McCain is the closest thing you will find to a moderate republican. I can't see him picking any of the other candidates in the race right now as his choice for VP, though...

[hippie_hunter]

But once they have the nomination it is no longer about ideals. In fact, it is about picking someone whose ideals are the polar opposite of yours in order to "balance the ticket." Oh American elections...how far you've sunk :csad:

If it makes you feel better, there's no way in hell Clinton is going to choose Obama as her running mate. Everytime you see them on the news it's like they want to rip each others nuts off.

[Venom'sDad]

Edwards either for that matter

[sinewave]

richardson for veep!

[Venom'sDad]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_s_massive_conflict_of_interests

As American banks go hat in hand to foreign financial institutions and governments, begging for capital to help them get out of the mess into which their subprime loans have landed them, the question arises as to whether the United States should permit nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the banks they control to acquire part ownership of our leading banks.

The presidential candidates discussed this issue in their Nevada debate and Hillary was asked about it in an interview with Neil Cavuto on the FOX Business Network yesterday. She replied that she would not “stand in the way” of such investments, but said that they needed to be vetted and called for more disclosure and “transparency.”

The fact is that Hillary Clinton is totally unable to be objective on this key question of our national financial sovereignty because she and her husband have been so compromised by their financial dealings with the very countries at issue in the decision.

Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America’s leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation?

Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill — and therefore herself — have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the UAE?

The Dubai Ports deal compromised our national security by putting key points of entry in that nation’s control. But the infusion of capital and the acquisition of equity in our key banks has the potential to make that encroachment on our sovereignty seem piddling by comparison.

Neither Dubai nor Saudi Arabia would be permitted to contribute to Hillary’s campaign. Foreigners are not allowed to do so, precisely to avoid having potential office holders compromised by gratitude for their financial support. But these nations have used the porous ethics of the Clinton family to acquire positions of massive influence by making contributions, not to her campaign, but to her personal bank account — either through Bill or through the Library and Foundation, which the Clintons directly control. The extent of the influence their millions must buy with a family only recently, according to Hillary, in the “middle class” must be huge.

And it is for exactly this kind of situation that the Clintons should be required to divulge the extent of their involvement with foreign interests and exactly how much money their personal bank accounts and their Library/Foundation have received. (The Saudi donation to the Library and Foundation was only discovered by the New York Times when the information was inadvertently posted on the Library’s Web site. Soon after the story appeared, it was taken down. The Clintons refuse to reveal the donors to the Library or the related Foundation.) Hillary and Bill have also refused to release their income tax returns, despite the fact that Bill willingly released his when he was running for president.

Why hasn’t Barack Obama or John Edwards even mentioned this issue? Their attacks on Hillary’s links to lobbyists and other special interests are usually painted with a broad brush. But the journey of America’s banks abroad in search of a bailout makes this specific conflict a key question of policy and highly relevant to their campaigns. What better illustration could one have of Hillary’s conflicts of interest than this one?

Why am I not surprise, but do anyone really think the CMM will report this in the major network(CNN, MSNBC,ABC, CBS, Fox, and BBC & Canadian News. No. The Network want dare touch this. Signs are there....

[The Senator]

Why am I not surprise, but do anyone really think the CMM will report this in the major network(CNN, MSNBC,ABC, CBS, Fox, and BBC & Canadian News. No. The Network want dare touch this. Signs are there....

Very prophetic :whatever:

[sinewave]

Why am I not surprise, but do anyone really think the CMM will report this in the major network(CNN, MSNBC,ABC, CBS, Fox, and BBC & Canadian News. No. The Network want dare touch this. Signs are there....

One more time in English, please?

[CorpusBlack]

"If Obama Wins The Election..."

He won't.

[The Senator]

"If Obama Wins The Election..."

He won't.

I don't know how strong enough he is to stand up against any likely attacks from the Republican party. Whether or not people following this campaign know that he isn't a drug addict, or a Muslim, those attacks will be made. They will "Swift Boat" him and run aggressive campaigns in several swing states which will no doubt influence that 65% of the electorate who doesn't make up their minds until a couple of weeks before the election, if that.

Plus, I don't know if he can hold his own against McCain, especially on the foreign policy and experience issues.

[Malice]

How would he stand up to Putin in a meeting...?

[The Senator]

How would he stand up to Putin in a meeting...?

Apparently by shaking hands and having a conversation.

Because, you know, all of Putin's opponents have done that, and they've ended up just swimmingly.

:dry:

[Rated-X]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/how_clinton_will_win_the_nomination_by_losing_sout h_carolina


Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly lose the South Carolina primary as African-Americans line up to vote for Barack Obama. And that defeat will power her drive to the nomination.

The Clintons are encouraging the national media to disregard the whites who vote in South Carolina’s Democratic primary and focus on the black turnout, which is expected to be quite large. They have transformed South Carolina into Washington, D.C. — an all-black primary that tells us how the African-American vote is going to go.

By saying he will go door to door in black neighborhoods in South Carolina matching his civil rights record against Obama’s, Bill Clinton emphasizes the pivotal role the black vote will play in the contest. And by openly matching his record on race with that of the black candidate, he invites more and more scrutiny focused on the race issue.

Of course, Clinton is going to lose that battle. Blacks in Nevada overwhelmingly backed Obama and will obviously do so again in South Carolina, no matter how loudly former President Clinton protests. So why is he making such a fuss over a contest he knows he’s going to lose?

Precisely because he is going to lose it. If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It’s one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don’t read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing. The more President Clinton begs black voters to back his wife, and the more they spurn her, the more the election becomes about race — and Obama ultimately loses.

Because they have such plans for South Carolina, the Clintons were desperate to win in Nevada. They dared not lose two primaries in a row leading up to Florida. But now they can lose South Carolina with impunity, having won in Nevada.

But don’t look for them to walk away from South Carolina. Their love needs to appear to have been unrequited by the black community for their rejection to seem so unfair that it triggers a white backlash. In this kind of ricochet politics, you have to lose openly and publicly in order to win the next round. And since the next round consists of all the important and big states, polarizing the contest into whites versus blacks will work just fine for Hillary.

Of course, this begs the question of how she will be able to attract blacks after beating Obama. Here the South Carolina strategy also serves its purpose. If she loses blacks and wins whites by attacking Obama, it will look dirty and underhanded to blacks. She’ll develop a real problem in the minority community. But if she is seen as being rejected by minority voters in favor of Obama after going hat in hand to them and trying to out-civil rights Obama, blacks will even likely feel guilty about rejecting Hillary and will be more than willing to support her in the general election.

[Matt]

It really all depends on if the black vote shows up. If they do, Obama will take South Carolina. As it is though, they are not an entirely reliable demographic to be basing your campaign on, as far as poll numbers are concerned.

[terry78]

djJ18ZC-7ug

I predict scenes like this will just pop up out of the blue if he is elected.

[Arc-Light]

djJ18ZC-7ug

I predict scenes like this will just pop up out of the blue if he is elected.

Location: Indiana............Yup i am living that same hell.

Yeah i always get that feeling Ann is full of it. But i usually get that feeling whenever any Republican talks.

[terry78]

^I'm actually in northwest indiana, closer to Chicago, so it's not as desolate up here.

[Arc-Light]

^I'm actually in northwest indiana, closer to Chicago, so it's not as desolate up here.

Yeah, lucky you for me its the opposite not Chicago but Louisville.

[Memphis Slim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=13884223#post13884223)
How would he stand up to Putin in a meeting...?

Jmanspice:
Apparently by shaking hands and having a conversation.

Because, you know, all of Putin's opponents have done that, and they've ended up just swimmingly.




WE already tried that. We even gave them assistance when one of their subs went down. We've even given them financial aid. Bush even had Putin over to ranch on many occasions for BBQ and a Ho Down. Putin is old school KGB.

But it doesn't matter. The only thing Russia undertsands is strength....not nicey nice. They are siding with Iran. They don't like democracy. Obama would be eaten alive by Putin.

[rdh007]

As opposed to???

I mean shaking hands and having a conversation is a start. After that, you can always tell someone to f*** off.

[Memphis Slim]

As opposed to???

I mean shaking hands and having a conversation is a start. After that, you can always tell someone to f*** off.*-

My point is that handshakes don't work with Putin. You still get a knife in the back.

[The Senator]

Or Uranium poisoning.

[hippie_hunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=13884223#post13884223)
How would he stand up to Putin in a meeting...?




WE already tried that. We even gave them assistance when one of their subs went down. We've even given them financial aid. Bush even had Putin over to ranch on many occasions for BBQ and a Ho Down. Putin is old school KGB.

But it doesn't matter. The only thing Russia undertsands is strength....not nicey nice. They are siding with Iran. They don't like democracy. Obama would be eaten alive by Putin.

To be fair though I think Putin can pretty much eat anyone alive. The man's a freaking black belt for crying out loud!

[Mr Sparkle]

Quote:


WE already tried that. We even gave them assistance when one of their subs went down. We've even given them financial aid. Bush even had Putin over to ranch on many occasions for BBQ and a Ho Down. Putin is old school KGB.

But it doesn't matter. The only thing Russia undertsands is strength....not nicey nice. They are siding with Iran. They don't like democracy. Obama would be eaten alive by Putin.

Oh! now I get it.
Celldog was personally involved ( hence the "we already" thing) I totally understand his passion now, he is like a bad Tom Clancy character.
caught in a web of intrigue.
plus, he also has Knowledge ( the secret government kind I pressume) of how a meeting with Putin would go.
man, big ups on all that intelligence you're getting, please keep sharing it with us poor civilian saps.

[Memphis Slim]

Or Uranium poisoning.


Bingo!

[Memphis Slim]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1SGuAVimB1Ml1M:http://www.panchjanya.com/8-10-2000/putin11.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.panchjanya.com/8-10-2000/putin11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.panchjanya.com/8-10-2000/&h=1200&w=1035&sz=99&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=1SGuAVimB1Ml1M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dputin%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den %26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enUS210US211%26sa%3DN)http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Xcc_BwvGqJTAkM:http://www.bfs-zh.ch/Bilder/Putin%25201.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bfs-zh.ch/Bilder/Putin%25201.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/10/9/17212/4972&h=515&w=395&sz=22&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=Xcc_BwvGqJTAkM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dputin%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den %26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enUS210US211%26sa%3DN)http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:X_P1pD1tyIlesM:http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_45/art03_45/0345_60putin.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_45/art03_45/0345_60putin.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_45/photo_essay/0345pe_start_a.htm&h=320&w=475&sz=29&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=X_P1pD1tyIlesM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dputin%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den %26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enUS210US211%26sa%3DN)http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:hSISySrwL5CTiM:http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2001/07/20/putin.GIF (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2001/07/20/putin.GIF&imgrefurl=http://globaloctopus.blogspot.com/2007/12/lets-get-this-over-with-or-dark-suits.html&h=321&w=300&sz=61&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=hSISySrwL5CTiM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dputin%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den %26rlz%3D1T4RNWN_enUS210US211%26sa%3DN)

This guy could be the villain in a James Bond Movie....... Geeez..

Just look at 'im. :woot:

[Matt]

Cellslim, enough of the random pictures, please. Do I have to forbid you from posting them like in the NFL threads?

[The Senator]

Funny thing about Putin... the United States supported him during both his Presidential bids, no? So why didn't we see his thirst for power in the first place?

[sinewave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=13884223#post13884223)
How would he stand up to Putin in a meeting...?

WE already tried that. We even gave them assistance when one of their subs went down. We've even given them financial aid. Bush even had Putin over to ranch on many occasions for BBQ and a Ho Down. Putin is old school KGB.

But it doesn't matter. The only thing Russia undertsands is strength....not nicey nice. They are siding with Iran. They don't like democracy. Obama would be eaten alive by Putin.

"ho down"? really?

*-

My point is that handshakes don't work with Putin. You still get a knife in the back.

:huh: but bush looked into his eyes and said he was a good person. i'm so confused. :(

[ShadowBoxing]

Funny thing about Putin... the United States supported him during both his Presidential bids, no? So why didn't we see his thirst for power in the first place?
Heh. America has a funny history with the Russians. Yeltsin, for example, was compared to Lincoln by our former President Clinton (as opposed to our next one:oldrazz: ). He then turned around and did some pretty questionable things.

I think Bill Maher made an interesting point. Russia has always had this respect for power I feel, almost like they like being under tyrannical leaders. Not saying they actually do, but there was an old phrase in Russia about politics that translates to "who gets whom" and it's still in their political system. That's how they see Government; as a game of cat and mouse. So I mean, we might've and then maybe not, maybe he just appeared like any other Russian leader we'd supported.

[ShadowBoxing]

WE already tried that. We even gave them assistance when one of their subs went down. We've even given them financial aid. Bush even had Putin over to ranch on many occasions for BBQ and a Ho Down. Putin is old school KGB.

But it doesn't matter. The only thing Russia undertsands is strength....not nicey nice. They are siding with Iran. They don't like democracy. Obama would be eaten alive by Putin.
Putin's a tough guy, I mean what you're saying is no stretch. He could probably eat who he wants to alive, even Chuck Norris.

[The Senator]

If Putin wasn't killing journalists or political opponents left and right, I'd consider him a somewhat respectable leader. I've never been a fan of any leader from Russia or the former Soviet Union. However, if the Russians support Putin (or anyone else for that matter), then why should we interfere with his leadership?

Plus, I really don't want the Cold War II in my lifetime, nor do I want to start any crap with them that isn't worth starting.

[ShadowBoxing]

I've never been a fan of any leader from Russia or the former Soviet Union.
lol. I'm really laughing at that comment, actually. I took Russian politics, and loved it. I was going to take another class, but decided not too. Reading Russian history is like watching a train wreck happen over and over and over again and each time it happens you think "maybe it's not going to crash this time".

[Rasmon Redux]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kn3w3W1dGy4

[Superman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malice http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=13884223#post13884223)
How would he stand up to Putin in a meeting...?




WE already tried that. We even gave them assistance when one of their subs went down. We've even given them financial aid. Bush even had Putin over to ranch on many occasions for BBQ and a Ho Down. Putin is old school KGB.

But it doesn't matter. The only thing Russia undertsands is strength....not nicey nice. They are siding with Iran. They don't like democracy. Obama would be eaten alive by Putin.Oh please. The Republicans tried to say the same thing about Kennedy going up against Khrushchev, It was BS then and it's BS now.:whatever:

[C.F. Kane]

Heh. America has a funny history with the Russians. Yeltsin, for example, was compared to Lincoln by our former President Clinton (as opposed to our next one:oldrazz: ). He then turned around and did some pretty questionable things.

I think Bill Maher made an interesting point. Russia has always had this respect for power I feel, almost like they like being under tyrannical leaders. Not saying they actually do, but there was an old phrase in Russia about politics that translates to "who gets whom" and it's still in their political system. That's how they see Government; as a game of cat and mouse. So I mean, we might've and then maybe not, maybe he just appeared like any other Russian leader we'd supported.

You've got a pretty good point here. The Russians prefer tyranny, because they know that anarchy is even worse.

[Venom'sDad]

Oh please. The Republicans tried to say the same thing about Kennedy going up against Khrushchev, It was BS then and it's BS now.:whatever:
Good point :up: plus most of the experience old heads of the Democrat Party are more and more supporting Obama.

Plus keep in mind people, Presidents has tons of so-called expert advisers to consider from.

Neitherless, Obama has a lot more experience than hillary. She has none and I have yet to see anyone prove that she does. She is benefiting from the name of her husband, point blank. No one would know her or what she even looked like, if she still had her maiden name. LOL.

She has been touting Government control on a number of issues in Nashville & Memphis. Has anyone seen this? She is a Socialist "Big Brother" Deva.

[Matt]

Good point :up: plus most of the experience old heads of the Democrat Party are more and more supporting Obama.

Plus keep in mind people, Presidents has tons of so-called expert advisers to consider from.

Neitherless, Obama has a lot more experience than hillary. She has none and I have yet to see anyone prove that she does. She is benefiting from the name of her husband, point blank. No one would know her or what she even looked like, if she still had her maiden name. LOL.

She has been touting Government control on a number of issues in Nashville & Memphis. Has anyone seen this? She is a Socialist "Big Brother" Deva.


Hillary's experience - 8 years as first lady, during which time she was easily the most hands-on first lady in our country's history. Even going as far as to be the head of White House policy committees. By January 2009, when she would be sworn in...she will also have 9 years in the Senate under her belt.

Obama's experience - 7 years in state legislature, combined with 4 years in Senate by 2009 when he would be sworn in. 2 of those 4 years however will have been spent campaigning for the presidency and if he keeps his pace this year, like he did last year...he will miss approximately 85 % of his senate votes due to his campaigning.

In all honesty, I don't think either of them have the experience to be President...and when you really look at their resumes...they are about equal with Clinton having a slight edge...but not a significant one. I personally like my President to have some sort of experience in the executive branch. But thats just me. And you can say "they have advisors" all you want. I am not electing advisors. I am electing the President, the one who makes the final call. Not his advisors. Bush had countless advisors telling him not to invade Iraq and there was no proof to tie it to 9/11 or WMDs...look how that turned out.

[Venom'sDad]

Hillary's experience - 8 years as first lady, during which time she was easily the most hands-on first lady in our country's history. Even going as far as to be the head of White House policy committees. By January 2009, when she would be sworn in...she will also have 9 years in the Senate under her belt.

WHAT! I wonder how I knew supporters of hillary would come in and tout "1st Lady experience" Wow, I didn't know placing one head on a "White House" pillar, qualifies as experience. the fact of the matter, all she did was shake hands, blew kisses, and showed pictures on the wall, with the occasion, as my daughter wuld say, lets play tea-party. If she really had real hands-on 1st lady experience, she would release the documents touting those policy making committees you espouse... and we know she would, knocking down walls trying to get the Clinton Media Machine(CMM) to flaunt that.

In the senate, she has done nothing but run her mouth trying to be visible. She has not propose or wrote any bill, she attached her name to two, which failed(like her Two-Time Failed Health Care Plan that she tried to get Rev. Bill to pass both times), in which Party Leaders tried to distance themselves from. They would not allow her to attach her name to nothing else, just allowed her to be a silent partner.

Obama on the other hand, in his short senate career, has sponsored dozen of bills, wrote 1 bill and co-wrote 4, with all but 1, I believe passed. Hmmm, lets see Obama gets things done and reach across party lines... hillary does nothing, screams, divides her own party, and unite the opposing party. Yeah... OK. :dry:



In all honesty, I don't think either of them have the experience to be President...and when you really look at their resumes...they are about equal with Clinton having a slight edge...but not a significant one. I personally like my President to have some sort of experience in the executive branch. But thats just me. And you can say "they have advisors" all you want. I am not electing advisors. I am electing the President, the one who makes the final call. Not his advisors. Bush had countless advisors telling him not to invade Iraq and there was no proof to tie it to 9/11 or WMDs...look how that turned out.

That I totally agree with. :up: Those that has that experience, are Repubs. :)

Come on, that's a blanket statement, "electing advisors" we all know that. Geeez, that does not change the fact that Presidents have highly regarded advisors. Because you may not agree with decisions made, keep in mind, you are not "Privy" to information or situation. So you don't know. Get over it and stop spewing what you think you know. Now, Party heads are advisors too, and most of them are backing Barack Obama... hmmmm.

[cookiva]

If this was on experience, Richardson would have won, with Edwards as a VP for him. Thats a ****ing good ticket.

[Matt]

WHAT! I wonder how I knew supporters of hillary would come in and tout "1st Lady experience" Wow, I didn't know placing one head on a "White House" pillar, qualifies as experience. the fact of the matter, all she did was shake hands, blew kisses, and showed pictures on the wall, with the occasion, as my daughter wuld say, lets play tea-party. If she really had real hands-on 1st lady experience, she would release the documents touting those policy making committees you espouse... and we know she would, knocking down walls trying to get the Clinton Media Machine(CMM) to flaunt that.

In the senate, she has done nothing but run her mouth trying to be visible. She has not propose or wrote any bill, she attached her name to two, which failed(like her Two-Time Failed Health Care Plan that she tried to get Rev. Bill to pass both times), in which Party Leaders tried to distance themselves from. They would not allow her to attach her name to nothing else, just allowed her to be a silent partner.

Obama on the other hand, in his short senate career, has sponsored dozen of bills, wrote 1 bill and co-wrote 4, with all but 1, I believe passed. Hmmm, lets see Obama gets things done and reach across party lines... hillary does nothing, screams, divides her own party, and unite the opposing party. Yeah... OK. :dry:





That I totally agree with. :up: Those that has that experience, are Repubs. :)

Come on, that's a blanket statement, "electing advisors" we all know that. Geeez, that does not change the fact that Presidents have highly regarded advisors. Because you may not agree with decisions made, keep in mind, you are not "Privy" to information or situation. So you don't know. Get over it and stop spewing what you think you know. Now, Party heads are advisors too, and most of them are backing Barack Obama... hmmmm.

See, this is why you are impossible to debate with. Someone who is a supporter of neither gives you an unbiased analysis of the respective experience of both and you just shrug it off by saying "You're just a puppet of the Clinton Media Machine!" I'm not going to respond to your post, because frankly, you are obnoxious and not worthy of debating with. So good day to you, sir.

[Matt]

If this was on experience, Richardson would have won, with Edwards as a VP for him. Thats a ****ing good ticket.

In a perfect world :csad:

[Ultimate_Superman]

To be honest I don't see Obama becoming president because I think he will be killed if he was ever elected. I think someone will kill him before he could get sworn in.

[Matt]

To be honest I don't see Obama becoming president because I think he will be killed if he was ever elected. I think someone will kill him before he could get sworn in.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know what happens in such a situation? Does VP elect get the position? Because, well, technically, he is not officially the VP. Does Congress get to appoint someone? Is there another election? What happens if the President-Elect dies before being sworn in?

[Venom'sDad]

See, this is why you are impossible to debate with. Someone who is a supporter of neither gives you an unbiased analysis of the respective experience of both and you just shrug it off by saying "You're just a puppet of the Clinton Media Machine!" I'm not going to respond to your post, because frankly, you are obnoxious and not worthy of debating with. So good day to you, sir.

Simply, you can't respond, because fact is fact, Matt. You can't defend someone's experience who has no experience to defend. Beside, not one time, did I say you was a puppet of the CMM... don't try to hide behind your inability to accurately defend this so-call experience you say she has. If anything is obnoxious... it's your attempt to conjure up some hint of experience for someone who has none...

... and good day to you too sir.

[cookiva]

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know what happens in such a situation? Does VP elect get the position? Because, well, technically, he is not officially the VP. Does Congress get to appoint someone? Is there another election? What happens if the President-Elect dies before being sworn in?

See, I was wondering something the same thing. I would assume if would be VP elect.

[cookiva]

Simply, you can't respond, because fact is fact, Matt. You can't defend someone's experience who has no experience to defend. Beside, not one time, did I say you was a puppet of the CMM... don't try to hide behind your inability to accurately defend this so-call experience you say she has. If anything is obnoxious... it's your attempt to conjure up some hint of experience for someone who has none...

... and good day to you too sir.


Have you not read the post in which Matt said that neither of them have the experience needed???

[Matt]

Simply, you can't respond, because fact is fact, Matt. You can't defend someone's experience who has no experience to defend. Beside, not one time, did I say you was a puppet of the CMM... don't try to hide behind your inability to accurately defend this so-call experience you say she has. If anything is obnoxious... it's your attempt to conjure up some hint of experience for someone who has none...

...good day to you too sir.

I've already laid out what her experience is. 8 years in the Senate is experience, no matter how much you would like to marginalize it. So is 8 years in the White House during which she was an unprecedented hands-on first lady. Frankly, there is absolutely no denying her level of involvment while she was in that position. You have no argument. You dislike her, I get it. I'm not wild about her either. That doesn't mean you can just negate every thing she has accomplished (which is quite a bit, like her or not) by hiding behind a rant on your Clinton Media Machine nonsense. I don't think she has the experience as she is not even a 2 term senator and has not held an executive branch position. But I am not ranting about some BS CMM.

[Venom'sDad]

Have you not read the post in which Matt said that neither of them have the experience needed???

Dude... what are you talking about or did you read what Matt posted. He made a comparioson between the two and gave hillary a slight edge.

"In all honesty, I don't think either of them have the experience to be President...and when you really look at their resumes...they are about equal with Clinton having a slight edge...but not a significant one"

I'm making the point that she has NO Experience and Obama has a lot more of an edge. So what is your point cookiva? :rolleyes:



I've already laid out what her experience is. 8 years in the Senate is experience, no matter how much you would like to marginalize it. So is 8 years in the White House during which she was an unprecedented hands-on first lady. Frankly, there is absolutely no denying her level of involvment while she was in that position. You have no argument. You dislike her, I get it. I'm not wild about her either. That doesn't mean you can just negate every thing she has accomplished (which is quite a bit, like her or not) by hiding behind a rant on your Clinton Media Machine nonsense.

Yes, you have laid out something and you are yet to prove anything. Especially this First Lady Experience Crap. Honestly, what has she done policy wise... I've been waiting for some one to bring forth what she has done... as 1st Lady and as Senator.

So it's you who is completely negating the fact, that she does not have any experience at all. If it's absolutely no denying her level of involvement, please do share... or have her to release the documents proving it. Otherwise you just spewing bunk, that you know you can't prove or back-up with hard evidence.

It's just "Talk"

[Matt]

Dude... what are you talking about or did you read what Matt posted. He made a comparioson between the two and gave hillary a slight edge.



I'm making the point that she has NO Experience and Obama has a lot more of an edge. So what is your point cookiva? :rolleyes:

She DOES have an edge. 9 years in Senate > 4 years in Senate. It is basic math.



Yes, you have laid out something and you are yet to prove anything. Especially this First Lady Experience Crap. Honestly, what has she done policy wise... I've been waiting for some one to bring forth what she has done... as 1st Lady and as Senator.

So it's you who is completely negating the fact, that she does not have any experience at all. If it's absolutely no denying her level of involvement, please do share... or have her to release the documents proving it. Otherwise you just spewing bunk, that you know you can't prove or back-up with hard evidence.

It's just "Talk"


Read this article. Enlighten yourself. Clinton was not the Laura Bush-esque, home maker first lady.

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4647

To claim Hillary did not take on more tasks than the average first lady, specifically in the policy making arena is just a fabrication. Again, I get that you do not like her...but that is no reason to deny what she has done.

[Venom'sDad]

OMG!!! :lmao: This is what you put up in defense! How she tried to get Rev. Bill to pass a Health Care Plan, that fail twice. Oh man... I am beside myself... didn't we not already just a few post back discuss this. I expected more from you, Matt.

OK... lets recap, cause I know, at the very least, I mention this.

WHAT! I wonder how I knew supporters of hillary would come in and tout "1st Lady experience" Wow, I didn't know placing one head on a "White House" pillar, qualifies as experience. the fact of the matter, all she did was shake hands, blew kisses, and showed pictures on the wall, with the occasion, as my daughter wuld say, lets play tea-party. If she really had real hands-on 1st lady experience, she would release the documents touting those policy making committees you espouse... and we know she would, knocking down walls trying to get the Clinton Media Machine(CMM) to flaunt that.

In the senate, she has done nothing but run her mouth trying to be visible. She has not propose or wrote any bill, she attached her name to two, which failed(like her Two-Time Failed Health Care Plan that she tried to get Rev. Bill to pass both times), in which Party Leaders tried to distance themselves from. They would not allow her to attach her name to nothing else, just allowed her to be a silent partner.

Obama on the other hand, in his short senate career, has sponsored dozen of bills, wrote 1 bill and co-wrote 4, with all but 1, I believe passed. Hmmm, lets see Obama gets things done and reach across party lines... hillary does nothing, screams, divides her own party, and unite the opposing party. Yeah... OK.

[Matt]

She's done nothing in Senate? Here is a link to bills she has sponsored in the 107th, 108th, 109th Congress. Quite a few more than Obama's.

http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/legislation/

Seems like quite a few to me. But lets face it...the woman could have the credentials of Franklin Roosevelt and you would chastize her. I mean, christ, VD. I have given numerous reasons why I dislike her...all you can do is call people "closet Clinton Supporters" and rant about this imaginary "Clinton Media Machine"

[Venom'sDad]

:rolleyes: Matt, that site does not show anything but what committee she's a member of. Every Senator is a member of a number of committees. That site does not prove anything. It does not show bills she wrote(was none); yet alone, bills she sponsored.... which failed. I knew she would not allow those bills to be mention on her site, and this is her site. She has to show she's a winner, not a loser... that she can get things done, not fail.

Look, I implore everyone to go to that site that Matt linked. There nothing there.... no substance that shows experience. It simply show members of committees, stories of other Senators and Congressmen, and a little info and mission statements about a particular committee.

You are streching her inexperience.

[Immortalfire]

Obama seems like an ok fellow, but I really don't see too much else about him that impresses me enough to vote for him.

[cookiva]

Dude... what are you talking about or did you read what Matt posted. He made a comparioson between the two and gave hillary a slight edge.



I'm making the point that she has NO Experience and Obama has a lot more of an edge. So what is your point cookiva? :rolleyes:



Do you not know how to read english??? He said neither has the requisite amount of experience if it goes to a battle based upon that. If it IS based upon that, Hillary does have more national experience. He said that very clearly.

[The Senator]

:rolleyes: Matt, that site does not show anything but what committee she's a member of. Every Senator is a member of a number of committees. That site does not prove anything. It does not show bills she wrote(was none); yet alone, bills she sponsored.... which failed. I knew she would not allow those bills to be mention on her site, and this is her site. She has to show she's a winner, not a loser... that she can get things done, not fail.

Look, I implore everyone to go to that site that Matt linked. There nothing there.... no substance that shows experience. It simply show members of committees, stories of other Senators and Congressmen, and a little info and mission statements about a particular committee.

You are streching her inexperience.

We all know you have your great change candidate.

But in the words of the Hillary-esque Walter Mondale... "Where's the beef?"

You point out how, in your eyes, that the bills Hillary has ever sponsored or cosponsored have no substance. Well, where's Obama's substance? Where are the bills which make him the most experienced candiate-- you know, the bills that make him stand out above the rest?

Like Matt said, all you can do is call Hillary Clinton a ***** and rant on and on about the so-called Clinton Media Bull**** Bull**** Bull**** Bull****. You make outlandish accusations and can't support anything you say with fact. Instead, you support it with opinion, and that's incredibly sad. Especially in my eyes, not just as a Clinton supporter, but as a policy wonk in general.

[cookiva]

There is a difference between debating and arguing/ranting. Debating is fun for all in the end. Arguing makes you look like an idiot.

[The Senator]

There is a difference between debating and arguing/ranting. Debating is fun for all in the end. Arguing makes you look like an idiot.

I want to know "where's the beef."

That's what I want to know.

If someone can attack my candidate's "inexperience," then I certainly have the right to ask where in his record is Obama the most experienced.

He can attack Hillary all he wants for not being "inspiring" or the "change candidate." She isn't either. He can attack her all he wants for leading a befuddled campaign. Her campaign has been a rollercoaster.

But he can't say that she lacks experience simply because he disagrees with her. That's moronic.

So I want to know... "where's the beef?"

Where's the beef?

Where's the beef?

Where's the beef?!

[cookiva]

IM EATING THE BEEF!


I don't know, man.

[Excel]

She wont win the general election. Her support isnt going to get any bigger.

The growing realization seems to be that she has trouble gaining support outside of the support shes had all along -i.e. of all the support changing going on amongst voters shes on the losing end most of the time.

Seriously, to Hillary supporters giving her the nomination is just asking to lose an election we should have had in the bag. Polls may show her ahead but it wont last and most people know it, she'll be torn to threads.

[Matt]

The only problem with your logic is, right now...Hillary is beating every Republican candidate in national polls. There is nothing to exploit. I agree, Hillary won't win the general, because once general campaign season is in swing, and every other commercial is an ad, tearing her a new one...her poll numbers WILL drop. Right now, however, if Obama made such a claim, he would have nothing to back it up and look like an ass.

[cookiva]

I think that the only candidate I could see beating Clinton in the long run is Romney. I would say McCain, but if he runs, we have Wes Clark as her VP, therefore taking away McCain's war hero status.

[The Senator]

I think that the only candidate I could see beating Clinton in the long run is Romney. I would say McCain, but if he runs, we have Wes Clark as her VP, therefore taking away McCain's war hero status.

Except that Romney loses the big swing states (Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kentucky) by twenty-point margins, so he can't be the biggest threat to Clinton. Whereas McCain trounces her in not only the major swing states, but four reliably Democratic states (Connecticut, Wisconsin, Oregon and Maryland).

So McCain is arguably the biggest threat to her, as well as any of the Democrats.

[Matt]

Except that Romney loses the big swing states (Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, and Kentucky) by twenty-point margins, so he can't be the biggest threat to Clinton. Whereas McCain trounces her in not only the major swing states, but four reliably Democratic states (Connecticut, Wisconsin, Oregon and Maryland).

So McCain is arguably the biggest threat to her, as well as any of the Democrats.

Its too early to say what Romney or McCain loses. A strong campaign can change anything.

[cookiva]

Exactly my point. I see the Romney campaign running a stronger campaign nationally than McCain. Things can, and most likely will, change quite a bit within the next few months.

[The Senator]

Its too early to say what Romney or McCain loses. A strong campaign can change anything.

I'm saying that, according to today's polling, Romney is not as big a threat to Clinton as McCain is. If the election was held today, Clinton would trounce Romney; on the other hand, McCain would trounce Clinton. Right now, her biggest threat is McCain, according to the polls. Obviously, the polls will tighten once the nominees are selected.

[cookiva]

But like I said, I believe that if its McCain v Clinton, McCains war record goes out the window with Clark, which is why I see Clinton beating him.

[The Senator]

But like I said, I believe that if its McCain v Clinton, McCains war record goes out the window with Clark, which is why I see Clinton beating him.

You're probably right on that. But then you'd have to assume she actually picks Clark, and that he doesn't pick someone like, oh, David Patreus as his running mate.

But, Clinton-Clark vs. McCain-someoneotherthanPatreusorLieberman would probably be a knock-out punch.

[cookiva]

You're probably right on that. But then you'd have to assume she actually picks Clark, and that he doesn't pick someone like, oh, David Patreus as his running mate.

But, Clinton-Clark vs. McCain-someoneotherthanPatreusorLieberman would probably be a knock-out punch.


I hope McCain picks Lieberman. Real Democrats will then win the white house. McCain - Lieberman will lose.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I got your beef right here.

Oops, wrong thread. :p

[hippie_hunter]

The only problem with your logic is, right now...Hillary is beating every Republican candidate in national polls. There is nothing to exploit. I agree, Hillary won't win the general, because once general campaign season is in swing, and every other commercial is an ad, tearing her a new one...her poll numbers WILL drop. Right now, however, if Obama made such a claim, he would have nothing to back it up and look like an ass.

Actually the polls are mixed in a McCain/Clinton race and show a statistical tie:

NBC/Wall Street Journal
McCain: 46%
Clinton: 44%

LA Times/Bloomberg
Clinton: 46%
McCain: 42%

Rasmussen
Clinton: 47%
McCain: 45%

USA Today/Gallup
McCain: 50%
Clinton: 47%

Hotline
McCain: 47%
Clinton: 43%

CNN
Clinton: 50%
McCain: 48%

RCP Average
McCain: 46.3%
Clinton: 46.2%

[StorminNorman]

She wont win the general election. Her support isnt going to get any bigger.

The growing realization seems to be that she has trouble gaining support outside of the support shes had all along -i.e. of all the support changing going on amongst voters shes on the losing end most of the time.

Seriously, to Hillary supporters giving her the nomination is just asking to lose an election we should have had in the bag. Polls may show her ahead but it wont last and most people know it, she'll be torn to threads.

Polling shows that Hillary has far more national support than Obama in the general election.

[StorminNorman]

McCain's running mate will probably be either Huckabee or Crist.

Sadly I like either of them even less than I like McCain.

[rdh007]

The only problem with your logic is, right now...Hillary is beating every Republican candidate in national polls. There is nothing to exploit. I agree, Hillary won't win the general, because once general campaign season is in swing, and every other commercial is an ad, tearing her a new one...her poll numbers WILL drop. Right now, however, if Obama made such a claim, he would have nothing to back it up and look like an ass.

I've seen those polls, but polls aren't worth much. At least in New Hampshire. Also, I believe his ability to speak about faith combined with the seething hate that she brings out in people (some independents who might consider Obama depending on who the Rapeublican is) make him a better general election candidate. Her "experience" includes Hillary-care, her baking cookies comment, and any other number ofVincethings thatFosterI can't think of.