Say hello to our next president... [Archive]

kronos251

01-30-2008, 08:47 AM

I'd honestly question McCain's sanity. Either he went insane during his 5 and a half years in a prison camp...or he didn't, in which case I would question his sanity as what kind of man does NOT go insane after 5 and a half years of torture?

Just a look on McCain's early life/military career:
Credits: US News & World Report, The Arizona Republic, The Economist, Wikipedia, et al

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, the son and grandson of prominent U.S. Navy admirals (John S. McCain, Sr. and John S. McCain, Jr.). He attended Episcopal High School and graduated in 1954. McCain then followed in his fathers' footsteps to the United States Naval Academy, graduating in 1958.

A naval aviator, John McCain was stationed aboard the great USS Forrestal where, on July 29, 1967, he escaped death when a missile accidentally launched across the ship, striking John McCain's A-4 Skyhawk. The impact ruptured the fuel tank on McCain's aircraft, the leaking fuel of which ignited, and knocked a bomb into the fire. John McCain escaped from his jet by climbing out of the cockpit, walking down to the nose of the plane, and jumping off the nose boom. A minute and a half after the impact, the bomb exploded underneath McCain's plane, starting a major fire which killed 134 sailors and nearly threatened to destroy the ship.

Video tape shot aboard the Forrestal shows McCain narrowly escaping the explosion.

Later in 1967, he was shot down over Vietnam, and was held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for five-and-a-half years. When his captors discovered he was the son and grandson of admirals, he was offered a chance to go home, but he refused to break the military code that POWs are released in the order that they are captured.

He was finally released from captivity in 1973, having survived the injuries he received when he was shot down, the beatings from an angry crowd and his captors, a year of torture, and two years of solitary confinement. Once released, his POW injuries prevented him from receiving a sea command, so in 1977, he became a Navy's liaison to the Senate. He was discharged from the Navy in 1981 as a Captain, on the day he watched his father buried next to his grandfather, in Arlington National Cemetery. During his military career he received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and a Distinguished Flying Cross. Deciding years later to not live with hatred in his heart, he forgave his captors for his treatment.

I don't think McCain has ever been diagnosed as insane.... or having post-traumatic stress syndrome..

There were a lot of displays of impatience and temper, yes, but who wouldn't be angry with the slow-moving mud-slinging politics of Capitol Hill? Especially being in the Senate for more than 20 years. After risking your life for your country, you would want to consider lesser pencil pushing to deal with, and more results to be delivered.

I'm kinda glad he's one candidate who can actually cross the aisle and get things done.

--
Gamma Ray, I might agree with you on this one.

Except for this :

... The US will never elect a female or black candidate..
It Greatly depends on the experience and sincerity of the candidate. If Condy Rice or Colin Powell, or any other qualified, trustworthy statesperson, they'd have a good chance of winning. But perhaps one gradual step at a time... a VP role is a good way to start off.

Malice

01-30-2008, 08:49 AM

Mccain is very old already havve you seen him walking from behind? he practiculy crawls he is a very elderly man.

beside the fact Mccain is a war hero(?) he has nothing over Clinton in a wide rangeing debate she would murder him imo.

I dont believe she would "murder him"
Is is very opinionated and strong.

I think he could stand on his own with any of them, something I recently noticed, he wont bother commenting or giving a comment on issues that are asked him that are astinine...he kinda gives a holier than thou attitude with those questions.

Matt

01-30-2008, 09:02 AM

Just a look on McCain's early life/military career:

I don't think McCain has ever been diagnosed as insane.... or having post-traumatic stress syndrome..

There were a lot of displays of impatience and temper, yes, but who wouldn't be angry with the slow-moving mud-slinging politics of Capitol Hill? Especially being in the Senate for more than 20 years. After risking your life for your country, you would want to consider lesser pencil pushing to deal with, and more results to be delivered.

The fact that he has never shown any signs of post-traumatic stress syndrome or any after-effect from the torture is telling as to what his mental health is, in my eyes. What kind of person doesn't go crazy from 5 and 1/2 years of torture? Answer: Someone who is already ****ing nuts. :woot:

I'm kinda glad he's one candidate who can actually cross the aisle and get things done.

I used to think that, but I'm not sure if I buy it anymore. McCain sold his soul to the GOP after his loss in 2000. He's gone from being a Maverick to being a party lap dog. The few times since then he has crossed the aisle (the campaign finance finance bill, taking the nuclear option off the table), etc have been greatly to the benefit of his party and himself. McCain has never been a huge fundraiser, so the finance reform bills help his campaigns. As for the nuclear option...he had foresight. He knew his party couldn't keep control forever and there would be a time when they need to filibuster. Its not a great uniting move that his PR staff would have you believe. On all the crucial issues (war, economoy, etc)...he has been in line behind the GOP on every stance. He has been kissing ass and pandering like no other for the past 8 years. He went from being a maverick who could think for himself and do what is right, to a party tool. Now-a-days his PR staff just uses the small, inconsequential bills like campaign finance reform and removing the nuclear option to create the illusion of bi-partisanship.

Matt

01-30-2008, 09:03 AM

I dont believe she would "murder him"
Is is very opinionated and strong.

I think he could stand on his own with any of them, something I recently noticed, he wont bother commenting or giving a comment on issues that are asked him that are astinine...he kinda gives a holier than thou attitude with those questions.

I've noticed that too, and I don't like it either. It screams the current Bush administrations policies of secrecy and deciet.

Matt

01-30-2008, 09:06 AM

I am concerned that he is 71 years old.
they say you age 3 years for every year in the white house...so he would be effectively 83 years old after four years...

Age is a big issue for me now....

I too am concerned by his age. McCain isn't getting any younger and he doesn't seem that healthy to boot. Chances are he will pick a ridiculously right wing running mate. Someone like a southern version of Rick Santorum. Because whether or not he is actually "moderate" (he's not), the public believes he is...and he is going to need a running mate who appeals to the neo-con, religious base of the party to ensure they don't lose crucial votes to a third party. So if McCain dies while in office...I would hate to think that we would get stuck with a President like Rick Santorum on a technicality.

Movies205

01-30-2008, 09:36 AM

Edit: I don't feel this is up to my usual quality posting so when I'm not tired, I'll come back... Till then it's better than Hilary or Obama :)

kronos251

01-30-2008, 10:54 AM

^ Ditto, and pithy too

The fact that he has never shown any signs of post-traumatic stress syndrome or any after-effect from the torture is telling as to what his mental health is, in my eyes. What kind of person doesn't go crazy from 5 and 1/2 years of torture? Answer: Someone who is already ****ing nuts. :woot:

Hah!! Just goes to show how many screwballs are flying in Washington...

But he did go off abit the deep end though (ie. when his first marriage failed - one of the symptoms that war has taken a toll on the mind, in terms of personal relationships). But of course, different POWs exhibit different behavior and how they handle their problems differently.

In my eyes, McCain still has his head, still has that dogged determination, and despite the ocassional temper tantrum over the past decades, he has mellowed quite considerably. Out of all the candidates running, I'd rather pick a hothead McCain on account that he makes the most sense.

I used to think that, but I'm not sure if I buy it anymore. McCain sold his soul to the GOP after his loss in 2000. He's gone from being a Maverick to being a party lap dog. The few times since then he has crossed the aisle (the campaign finance finance bill, taking the nuclear option off the table), etc have been greatly to the benefit of his party and himself. McCain has never been a huge fundraiser, so the finance reform bills help his campaigns. As for the nuclear option...he had foresight. He knew his party couldn't keep control forever and there would be a time when they need to filibuster. Its not a great uniting move that his PR staff would have you believe. On all the crucial issues (war, economoy, etc)...he has been in line behind the GOP on every stance. He has been kissing ass and pandering like no other for the past 8 years. He went from being a maverick who could think for himself and do what is right, to a party tool. Now-a-days his PR staff just uses the small, inconsequential bills like campaign finance reform and removing the nuclear option to create the illusion of bi-partisanship.hehe.. you obviously don't like the Republicans :) I don't blame you... though, I am one. I personally would like some of them to disappear off the face of the earth...... or retire in Manila. Say, Sen. Dick Lugar (IN), among others, he's been a veritable pain in the ass since World War II.

Darkly Dexter

01-30-2008, 11:04 AM

another republican government? After all what happened? Voters have to be very stupid to do that.

Matt

01-30-2008, 11:06 AM

^ Ditto, and pithy too

Hah!! Just goes to show how many screwballs are flying in Washington...

But he did go off abit the deep end though (ie. when his first marriage failed - one of the symptoms that war has taken a toll on the mind, in terms of personal relationships). But of course, different POWs exhibit different behavior and how they handle their problems differently.

In my eyes, McCain still has his head, still has that dogged determination, and despite the ocassional temper tantrum over the past decades, he has mellowed quite considerably. Out of all the candidates running, I'd rather pick a hothead McCain on account that he makes the most sense.

McCain used to make sense to me...now...his ticket seems to be very similiar to Bush's

hehe.. you obviously don't like the Republicans :) I don't blame you... though, I am one. I personally would like some of them to disappear off the face of the earth...... or retire in Manila. Say, Sen. Dick Lugar (IN), among others, he's been a veritable pain in the ass since World War II.

Its really not an anti-Republican thing. I would vote Romney over Obama or Clinton. It just baffles me how McCain can stay loyal to the party who dicked him so badly in 2000. It shows no backbone in my opinion at all. It shows me a weak, desperate man who is willing to pander to a bunch of ********s who commited libel and slander against him in 2000.

Malice

01-30-2008, 11:07 AM

another republican government? After all what happened? Voters have to be very stupid to do that.

You have not learned have you. Both Rep and Dem are equally retarded.

Matt

01-30-2008, 11:10 AM

another republican government? After all what happened? Voters have to be very stupid to do that.

Says the 21 year old who is obsessed with a 17 year old girl :cwink:

But seriously, that is a very closed minded attitude. There are Democrats who are just as bad (if not worse) than the Bush administration. Just because the Bush Administration sucked, doesn't mean all Republicans do.

Malice

01-30-2008, 11:11 AM

Says the 21 year old who is obsessed with a 17 year old girl :cwink:

But seriously, that is a very closed minded attitude. There are Democrats who are just as bad (if not worse) than the Bush administration. Just because the Bush Administration sucked, doesn't mean all Republicans do.

Woof Woof!

rdh007

01-30-2008, 11:22 AM

bell110

01-30-2008, 11:32 AM

The fact that he has never shown any signs of post-traumatic stress syndrome or any after-effect from the torture is telling as to what his mental health is, in my eyes. What kind of person doesn't go crazy from 5 and 1/2 years of torture? Answer: Someone who is already ****ing nuts. :woot:

Didn't you say you'd like to see a candidate flip-out? Maybe we'd get to see that. :)

I don't think he's insane. He's had years to heal mentally.

I used to think that, but I'm not sure if I buy it anymore. McCain sold his soul to the GOP after his loss in 2000. He's gone from being a Maverick to being a party lap dog. The few times since then he has crossed the aisle (the campaign finance finance bill, taking the nuclear option off the table), etc have been greatly to the benefit of his party and himself. McCain has never been a huge fundraiser, so the finance reform bills help his campaigns. As for the nuclear option...he had foresight. He knew his party couldn't keep control forever and there would be a time when they need to filibuster. Its not a great uniting move that his PR staff would have you believe. On all the crucial issues (war, economoy, etc)...he has been in line behind the GOP on every stance. He has been kissing ass and pandering like no other for the past 8 years. He went from being a maverick who could think for himself and do what is right, to a party tool. Now-a-days his PR staff just uses the small, inconsequential bills like campaign finance reform and removing the nuclear option to create the illusion of bi-partisanship.

I noticed that to, but deep down I believe (and hope) that he's just playing their game. People don't change that quickly. I think if he gets the nomination, he'd revert back to 2000 McCain.

They only thing I don't really like about McCain is his stance on war, but given his background, I think he'd have more empathy for the troops, unlike Bush who uses the troops like pawns in his twisted little game.

I dont believe she would "murder him"
Is is very opinionated and strong.

I think he could stand on his own with any of them, something I recently noticed, he wont bother commenting or giving a comment on issues that are asked him that are astinine...he kinda gives a holier than thou attitude with those questions.

I haven't noticed this. Could you elaborate?

kronos251

01-30-2008, 11:35 AM

McCain used to make sense to me...now...his ticket seems to be very similiar to Bush's

Its really not an anti-Republican thing. I would vote Romney over Obama or Clinton. It just baffles me how McCain can stay loyal to the party who dicked him so badly in 2000. It shows no backbone in my opinion at all. It shows me a weak, desperate man who is willing to pander to a bunch of ********s who commited libel and slander against him in 2000.

Sometimes, I feel that there's something lacking about Romney.. . :csad: Like there's a sort of disconnect somewhere in his campaign. However I cannot remove the fact that his speech regarding his religion was very inspiring, and very moving, and I truly laud him for that. Its just that, afterwards, he's been so combative lately, and I simply don't want to see or hear anybody attacking anybody - maybe he needs to change his strategy, perhaps focus on how he would solve the subprime housing crisis, immigration problems, oil, Iran.. I'd like to hear more of how he would confront those issues, because I really do think he can. Then, and only then, I just might consider voting for the guy.

About McCain, man oh man, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.:o :cwink:

Matt

01-30-2008, 11:36 AM

I only consider myself a Democrat because they suck less.

*begins ranting*

The only reason I haven't changed my registration to independent is because of the history of the Democratic Party. I am still a Democrat in the sense that Franklin Roosevelt was. I am in the party of Roosevelt, of Johnson, of Truman, of Wilson. The list can go on. The Democratic Party has such an amazing history. No other American party can say the same. The Republican Party has had 3 great Presidents (Eisenhower, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. People will argue for Reagan...but he's not. His policies were so shortsighted its not even funny and has done a lot of damage in the long run. People will say he won the Cold War, but that is a load. The Soviets destroyed themselves. They were on their way to being bankrupt. Reagan just happened to be president at the time). I wish the Democrat party would find its way back to the great party it was under FDR. FDR fought for the middle class. Now-a-days, the Democratic Party does not care if every middle class job is outsourced, so long as a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parent's knowledge. The party has lost its way under the leadership of the babyboomers and that is sad.

*ends ranting*

Malice

01-30-2008, 11:37 AM

I haven't noticed this. Could you elaborate?

Honestly I cant give specific instances...
In one of the latest debates, when he was sitting on the far left...
The candidates were debating and he would give like a 5 word reply...
Then he is shaking his head, in the fashion that I interpret as "you guys are both dumb..."

just some of his replies were voiced in the fashion of
"I dont need to reply, its not worth my time"

Part of it is just feeling...so sorry, I cant really pinpoint it.

This is one of the reasons that I have decided not to vote for him

kronos251

01-30-2008, 11:37 AM

another republican government? After all what happened? Voters have to be very stupid to do that.

:whatever: :csad:

Matt

01-30-2008, 11:41 AM

Sometimes, I feel that there's something lacking about Romney.. . :csad: Like there's a sort of disconnect somewhere in his campaign. However I cannot remove the fact that his speech regarding his religion was very inspiring, and very moving, and I truly laud him for that. Its just that, afterwards, he's been so combative lately, and I simply don't want to see or hear anybody attacking anybody - maybe he needs to change his strategy, perhaps focus on how he would solve the subprime housing crisis, immigration problems, oil, Iran.. I'd like to hear more of how he would confront those issues, because I really do think he can. Then, and only then, I just might consider voting for the guy.

I'm wishy-washy about Romney as well, but I think he can beat Clinton. It would be a tough campaign, but one he can win. Afterwards, I see him as the ultimate place holder president. He wouldn't do much harm...and he just screams one-termer. What is the end game, you ask?

2012: A POPULIST-Democrat candidate like Sherrod Brown can win the presidency and take the party back from radicals like Pelosi. With a Populist Democrat in control...real change (not the buzz word Obama is touting) can occur and we can see this country taken back for the common man.

About McCain, man oh man, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.:o :cwink:

Agreed. At any rate, welcome to the Hype. :up: :yay:

Movies205

01-30-2008, 12:06 PM

another republican government? After all what happened? Voters have to be very stupid to do that.

What exactly happened? Tell me what would of happened under a democratic leadership? Would the economic recession not happened? Would we not be at war? Would hurricane Katrina not have happened? The truth of the matter is this country was heading to this point no matter what due to the inaction of congress. Whether it be from the GOP's ridiculous overspending or the democratic forever childish need to embarrass the other party. Vote for one or the other based on the issues, don't buy into the propaganda either side is pushing.

Movies205

01-30-2008, 12:07 PM

Matt

01-30-2008, 12:09 PM

If only we could get a real republican :( Less Government is the way to go :up:

Not always. The government should exisit to serve its people. Sometimes, in doing so...it must take on a more pro-active role. I believe our country is approaching one of those times. And don't confuse pro-active with intrusive or a welfare state. Our country needs neither of those.

Malice

01-30-2008, 12:22 PM

There is a great way of thinking for both paths...of course, each is a philosophical debate unto itself.
The devil is in the details....

kronos251

01-30-2008, 01:06 PM

I'm wishy-washy about Romney as well, but I think he can beat Clinton. It would be a tough campaign, but one he can win. Afterwards, I see him as the ultimate place holder president. He wouldn't do much harm...and he just screams one-termer. What is the end game, you ask?

2012: A POPULIST-Democrat candidate like Sherrod Brown can win the presidency and take the party back from radicals like Pelosi. With a Populist Democrat in control...real change (not the buzz word Obama is touting) can occur and we can see this country taken back for the common man.

Agreed. At any rate, welcome to the Hype. :up: :yay:
Thanks:yay:

That's a good point you raised. I am awfully tired of Pelosi, Murtha, et al most of the Democratic Party today (except Bill Richardson, and guys like him who are too qualified to enter the race). And I agree, like I said in some other thread, if for some reason, FDR would come back from the dead, I'd vote for him. He's a man of his word, knew the ABC's of ground-breaking socio-economic reforms and basic infrastructure, and had a more cohesive war strategy and knew who to assign when it comes to its proper implementation on enemy territory. He was the man who knew how to deliver results.

Raiden

01-30-2008, 01:11 PM

After what happened this past 8 years with Bush in office (Iraq, Katrina, deficit, economy, etc etc), I think the Dems deserve a chance in the WH. I used to like McCain, but he has pandered to Bush so much (after Bush slandered him in 2000) that I don't have much respect for him anymore. Obama may not have as much experience as McCain, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Candidates who have "experience" do not always make the best prez; just look at Bush.

Yurka

01-30-2008, 01:20 PM

hippie_hunter

01-30-2008, 02:40 PM

I agree, however I'm not so sure that McCain will will.

If Clinton becomes the nominee, McCain would completely rape her campaign.

She'd have no choice but to drop her experience platform because McCain's experience far exceeds hers.

Iraq would blow up in her face because of her vote for it, her constant defending of the vote but saying we should pull out, while McCain criticized the handling of the war but has remained consistent in his support and the situation has been getting better.

Clinton is involved in numerous scandals such as Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate along with the baggage of her husbands scandals with Monica Lewinski, the pardons, etc. McCain just has Keating Five and his divorce both of which can be easily swept away.

And finally, McCain is far better than Clinton in capturing the two most important voting blocs: the independents and the moderates (conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans). He'd have the average Republican and conservative vote. And the GOP would fearmonger the neo-conservatives and evangellicals into voting for McCain by telling them that if they don't vote or vote for a third party they'll be responsible for putting Hillary Clinton in office. The only people who would vote for Clinton are Democrats and false "independents" (people who haven't registered for a party, claim to be independent, but prefer a certain party).

Now if Barack Obama got the nomination, now there will be a challenge. That would be a good campaign to see.

Yurka

01-30-2008, 02:44 PM

If Clinton becomes the nominee, McCain would completely rape her campaign.

She'd have no choice but to drop her experience platform because McCain's experience far exceeds hers.

Iraq would blow up in her face because of her vote for it, her constant defending of the vote but saying we should pull out, while McCain criticized the handling of the war but has remained consistent in his support and the situation has been getting better.

Clinton is involved in numerous scandals such as Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate along with the baggage of her husbands scandals with Monica Lewinski, the pardons, etc. McCain just has Keating Five and his divorce both of which can be easily swept away.

And finally, McCain is far better than Clinton in capturing the two most important voting blocs: the independents and the moderates (conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans). He'd have the average Republican and conservative vote. And the GOP would fearmonger the neo-conservatives and evangellicals into voting for McCain by telling them that if they don't vote or vote for a third party they'll be responsible for putting Hillary Clinton in office. The only people who would vote for Clinton are Democrats and false "independents" (people who haven't registered for a party, claim to be independent, but prefer a certain party).

Now if Barack Obama got the nomination, now there will be a challenge. That would be a good campaign to see.

I completely agree, I just meant I'm not so sure that McCain will be the nominee.

Steve Rogers

01-30-2008, 02:56 PM

If it weren't for him supporting the war, I'd have no problem with McCain. But, I'm sorry. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who wants to continue a war.

hippie_hunter

01-30-2008, 02:56 PM

I completely agree, I just meant I'm not so sure that McCain will be the nominee.

McCain's nomination is now an inevitability. He'll win important Super Tuesday states in New York (101 winner take all), California (173 winner take all), New Jersey (52 winner take all), Arizona (53 winner take all), and Illinois (70 proportional).

Genesis 1.0

01-30-2008, 03:49 PM

*begins ranting*

The only reason I haven't changed my registration to independent is because of the history of the Democratic Party. I am still a Democrat in the sense that Franklin Roosevelt was. I am in the party of Roosevelt, of Johnson, of Truman, of Wilson. The list can go on. The Democratic Party has such an amazing history. No other American party can say the same. The Republican Party has had 3 great Presidents (Eisenhower, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. People will argue for Reagan...but he's not. His policies were so shortsighted its not even funny and has done a lot of damage in the long run. People will say he won the Cold War, but that is a load. The Soviets destroyed themselves. They were on their way to being bankrupt. Reagan just happened to be president at the time). I wish the Democrat party would find its way back to the great party it was under FDR. FDR fought for the middle class. Now-a-days, the Democratic Party does not care if every middle class job is outsourced, so long as a 13 year old girl can get an abortion without her parent's knowledge. The party has lost its way under the leadership of the babyboomers and that is sad.

*ends ranting*

Heh, this statement screams 'blind populist zealot', can't pass up on all the flaws in this one.

The Republican party indeed had Lincoln, who with the rest of the Republican Party, are the ones who managed to abolish slavery, gain equal rights, AND secure voting rights for African-Americans. We're also the first major party to endorse and push through legislation that ensured women's right to vote.

Hell, for the most of the late 19th century in the 20th, Republicans were the dominant party of Americans. To be exact, 28 of 40 years, that's from 1952 on through to 1992 the White House was under the Republican Party. Yes we had Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Lincoln we also had Nixon, Ford, Regean, AND Bush Sr. ALL great Presidents with an enormous amount of impact of the nation we have today.

As to your naive claims concerning Reagan, the United States won the Cold War because of his leadership. Millions were freed from communism because of the man you'd like to diminish. It was under Reagan AND Bush Sr. that the United States became the world's only superpower. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights. The freedom of Americans to make their own decisions, and to live their own lives, relatively free from governmental or other interference, has caused us to become a beacon of hope around the world, the basic principles that Thomas Jefferson held are the ones that make up our party.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Ammendments exist because of Republicans. Unfortunately, there have been several departures from the core of the party over the years but nonetheless, your assertion that only the Democratic Party has a rich history is completely false.

Matt

01-30-2008, 03:55 PM

Heh, this statement screams 'blind populist zealot', can't pass up on all the flaws in this one.

The Republican party indeed had Lincoln, who with the rest of the Republican Party, are the ones who managed to abolish slavery, gain equal rights, AND secure voting rights for African-Americans. We're also the first major party to endorse and push through legislation that ensured women's right to vote.

And I would not, nor did I ever sell Lincoln short.

Hell, for the most of the late 19th century in the 20th, Republicans were the dominant party of Americans. To be exact, 28 of 40 years, that's from 1952 on through to 1992 the White House was under the Republican Party. Yes we had Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Lincoln we also had Nixon, Ford, Regean, AND Bush Sr. ALL great Presidents with an enormous amount of impact of the nation we have today.

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you called Nixon, Ford, and Bush Sr. great presidents and move on.*

As to your naive claims concerning Reagan, the United States won the Cold War because of his leadership. Millions were freed from communism because of the man you'd like to diminish. It was under Reagan AND Bush Sr. that the United States became the world's only superpower. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights. The freedom of Americans to make their own decisions, and to live their own lives, relatively free from governmental or other interference, has caused us to become a beacon of hope around the world, the basic principles that Thomas Jefferson held are the ones that make up our party.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Ammendments exist because of Republicans. Unfortunately, there have been several departures from the core of the party over the years but nonetheless, your assertion that only the Democratic Party has a rich history is completely false.

Reagan and Bush Sr threw smoke into the fire. Our Soviet policy was working fine. We were at peace with the SU, Reagan pretty much pissed them off for the sake of it. As if he was trying to turn the Cold War into...well...a war. Furthermore, the Soviets collapsed because of their economy. Quite frankly, they went broke and that led to revolution. It had nothing to do with "great leadership" from Reagan. The same scenario would've played out under Walter Mondale.

* Nixon would've been great if he didn't completely cluster-**** our pull out from Vietnam and then get caught up in Watergate.

Genesis 1.0

01-30-2008, 04:02 PM

Yurka

01-30-2008, 04:06 PM

McCain's nomination is now an inevitability. He'll win important Super Tuesday states in New York (101 winner take all), California (173 winner take all), New Jersey (52 winner take all), Arizona (53 winner take all), and Illinois (70 proportional).

It certainly appears like it and I'm all for it, but I'm just worried there could be a big upset next week.

Matt

01-30-2008, 04:08 PM

Sadly, that's about what I'd expect from what I've seen of your views, which happen to be very biased with the guise of equality.

What you seem to have overlooked is the simple fact that the Republican Party has just as rich a history as the Democratic, if not more so.

Yep, Bush Sr. and Ford...such great history. And if I were so biased, why would I have began my post by pointing out various great Republican presidents? The Democrats simply have a longer, richer history.

Genesis 1.0

01-30-2008, 04:14 PM

Yep, Bush Sr. and Ford...such great history. And if I were so biased, why would I have began my post by pointing out various great Republican presidents? The Democrats simply have a longer, richer history.

Thus my equality statement.

It's classic, you lead off with a positive and then get to the point. For example:

-"I have a black friend..." Which is the classic cover used by closet racist remarks.

-"I don't hate gay people but...' Which invariably leads to a gay bash.

And your classic:

-"I don't like Hillary but..." Which has led to you bashing Obama and being pro-Clinton under the table, i.e. in every possible stance except openly.

You gave out underhanded praise and then dug in with a statement that's false, plain and simple. Obviously we have very different views on the definition of the word 'rich'.

Lightning Strykez!

01-30-2008, 06:03 PM

McCain's nomination is now an inevitability. He'll win important Super Tuesday states in New York (101 winner take all), California (173 winner take all), New Jersey (52 winner take all), Arizona (53 winner take all), and Illinois (70 proportional).

Agreed. The writing is on the wall now, especially with the expectation that Rudy will endorse him. The thing is neither McCain, Huckabee or Guiliani have any love for Mitty. Of the 4, he probably has the highest approval ratings, hence the voting patterns we've seen thusfar. And if it comes down to 2 candidates, with McCain vs. Mitt Romney, McCain will still trounce him. Why? Because for the simple fact that Mitty is not likable, despite his experience in government.

McCain WILL take it--I can sense it. *removes fingers from temples*

Lightning Strykez!

01-30-2008, 06:07 PM

I also agree (and have said in other threads here) that if McCain is indeed the Repubbie nominee, it will mean SUDDEN DEATH for Hillary Clinton. He will completely evaporate every brick of her campaigning foundation. Mark my words.

The only viable candidate that could actually give him a run for his money is Obama. His views on matters are essentially the same as Billary's and Edwards, yet he doesn't have dirt in his past that could be used against him by McCain's political machine (i.e. he was the only Senator that didn't support the war on Iraq).

Plus, I am not so sure that the American public is jumping at the chance to reinstate 4 more years of Repubbie control...most have had their fill of it, thanks to fumbles of the current Administration.

The Senator

01-30-2008, 08:30 PM

As to your naive claims concerning Reagan, the United States won the Cold War because of his leadership. Millions were freed from communism because of the man you'd like to diminish. It was under Reagan AND Bush Sr. that the United States became the world's only superpower. Republicans have a long and rich history with basic principles: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights. The freedom of Americans to make their own decisions, and to live their own lives, relatively free from governmental or other interference, has caused us to become a beacon of hope around the world, the basic principles that Thomas Jefferson held are the ones that make up our party.

The problem with your assertion that the U.S. won the Cold War because of Reagan is completely false. Studies have shown that the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway. During the 1980s, the country's economic growth was at an all time low, the economy was in a deep recession, and the political climate had been changing in many of the Soviet satellite nations since the late 1970s. Certainly, Reagan's calls to the end the communist regime in the USSR helped end the Cold War; but Reagan didn't solely end the Cold War. The Cold War would have ended not because of an American president, but because of the economy, and it did so solely because of its own economic downturn-- NOT international calls to abandon its government and start anew.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Ammendments exist because of Republicans. Unfortunately, there have been several departures from the core of the party over the years but nonetheless, your assertion that only the Democratic Party has a rich history is completely false.

My Democratic Party is the Democratic Party which emerged in the Sixties, when LBJ led the Democrats into accepting and promoting civil rights. My Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party of two hundred years ago, the party which oppressed an entire race and entire generations because they looked different. My party is not what the Republican Party has become. When you get a Republican who can fight for gay rights, a woman's right to choose, cutting taxes for the middle class and freedom of religious expression to all denominations including those who aren't rooted in Christianity, then I'll support the Republican Party. But for now, I have the Democratic Party, and that's the party I plan to support until they personally screw me over.

Superman

01-30-2008, 08:40 PM

another republican government? After all what happened? Voters have to be very stupid to do that.I couldn't agree with you more.

hippie_hunter

01-30-2008, 10:29 PM

I couldn't agree with you more.

No offense but if you guys decide to have Hillary as the nominee, the Democrats deserve another 4 years of a Republican administration. Giving her the nomination is just literally asking "Please sir can I have some more," to the Republicans.

hippie_hunter

01-30-2008, 10:30 PM

Schwarzenegger will endorse McCain tomorrow.

cookiva

01-30-2008, 10:32 PM

Schwarzenegger will endorse McCain tomorrow.

I can see politically why, but he is basically a Kennedy. Why isn't he backing Obama? He won't get sex for the next few years.

Shifty

01-30-2008, 11:46 PM

I can see politically why, but he is basically a Kennedy. Why isn't he backing Obama? He won't get sex for the next few years.

Have you seen his wife? He's better off with some young staffer.

teseract

01-31-2008, 10:41 AM

all people are entitled to equal rights. The freedom of Americans to make their own decisions, and to live their own lives, relatively free from governmental or other interference, has caused us to become a beacon of hope around the world.

Let me tell you something as a non US citizen, you're NOT a beacon of hope in the world, on the contrary. Pretty much every other nation speaks of the US with a grumble in their voice and that's mainly because of your glorious Republican party.

Furthermore, you should be burning bright red with shame, sprouting party propaganda and buzz words like "the right to make your own decisions" and "living their own lives relatively free from government etc." when the same party that supposedly stands for these things is more interested in what 10% of the population do in their bedrooms in private, than how the average american is making ends meet. Fact is that your glorious GOP increased govermental power in the last 8 years in an amount unheard of before. Fact is, a strong basis of the same party wants to tell the rest of the populus how to run their lives to meet a standard routed in religious mythology. I don't see how that is in any way, shape or form compatible with the ideas of "the right to make your own decisions" and "living ones live free from government." Whatever history the GOP once posessed is long gone and dead. The new GOP is as much socialist as the Democrats are, they are just not left wing socialists.

hippie_hunter

01-31-2008, 10:49 AM

Let me tell you something as a non US citizen, you're NOT a beacon of hope in the world, on the contrary. Pretty much every other nation speaks of the US with a grumble in their voice and that's mainly because of your glorious Republican party.

Which is really sad if you ask me. The United States SHOULD be the beacon of hope in the world. The United States should be highly looked upon by other nations. The United States should be the defender of human rights and dignity. The United States should be the leader of the free world and democratic nations everywhere.

Though that's not the Republican's fault. Both Republican and Democratic administrations ever since the Cold War has damaged what the United States should be. By supporting dictatorships, screwing over South America, Vietnam, and of course the more recent actions of the Bush Administration.

Darkly Dexter

01-31-2008, 11:05 AM

What exactly happened? Tell me what would of happened under a democratic leadership? Would the economic recession not happened? Would we not be at war? Would hurricane Katrina not have happened? The truth of the matter is this country was heading to this point no matter what due to the inaction of congress. Whether it be from the GOP's ridiculous overspending or the democratic forever childish need to embarrass the other party. Vote for one or the other based on the issues, don't buy into the propaganda either side is pushing.

I know both parties are crap. If a democratic government would've done a war based on pure lies, I would be here saying the exact same things. But it was a Republican government, and they should know they f**** up. Be cause if you vote for them again it would be like anything never happened. They have to be punished, and the way to do it in a democracy is to get them out of the Office.

BlackLantern

01-31-2008, 11:13 AM

BlackLantern

01-31-2008, 11:16 AM

I know both parties are crap. If a democratic government would've done a war based on pure lies, I would be here saying the exact same things. But it was a Republican government, and they should know they f**** up. Be cause if you vote for them again it would be like anything never happened. They have to be punished, and the way to do it in a democracy is to get them out of the Office.

well the national conventions basically tell people who to vote for. while a lot of people whine and complain and set up online petitions, those red staters are out there voting every year like clockwork....if people stopped whining and started voting, things might be different

teseract

01-31-2008, 11:18 AM

Which is really sad if you ask me. The United States SHOULD be the beacon of hope in the world. The United States should be highly looked upon by other nations. The United States should be the defender of human rights and dignity. The United States should be the leader of the free world and democratic nations everywhere.

Though that's not the Republican's fault. Both Republican and Democratic administrations ever since the Cold War has damaged what the United States should be. By supporting dictatorships, screwing over South America, Vietnam, and of course the more recent actions of the Bush Administration.

True, however, the US had at least a shred of dignity left during the Clinton years. The tenor here in my Country was quite favorable back then, sure the US had their faults but people were willing to overlook them. Then Bush came and the whole attitude towards the US changed dramatically.

Lobster Charlie

01-31-2008, 11:29 AM

Reagan was about as old as McCain, and got elected into office. Twice.

Matt

01-31-2008, 11:42 AM

Reagan was about as old as McCain, and got elected into office. Twice.

Reagan also did not spend five years in a POW camp and substained injuries and conditions which still plague him to this day.

Genesis 1.0

01-31-2008, 12:22 PM

The problem with your assertion that the U.S. won the Cold War because of Reagan is completely false. Studies have shown that the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway. During the 1980s, the country's economic growth was at an all time low, the economy was in a deep recession, and the political climate had been changing in many of the Soviet satellite nations since the late 1970s. Certainly, Reagan's calls to the end the communist regime in the USSR helped end the Cold War; but Reagan didn't solely end the Cold War. The Cold War would have ended not because of an American president, but because of the economy, and it did so solely because of its own economic downturn-- NOT international calls to abandon its government and start anew.

All it takes is one man to lead a change in a nation, for the better or for the worse, to deny this is to deny your entire irrational hate of Bush. Leaving you completely without a base or platform, not that you had much of one to begin with aside from overweening disgruntlement. Reagan calls to end the communist regime were the catalyst for the change that came about, effectively ending the Cold War. Not just empty words, but threats backed by possible force that kept the corrupt government in check long enough for a revoltuion to take place. Simply because the victory didn't fit into your ideological bubble, inside your definition of a victory doesn't mean it wasn't.

It also doesn't diminish the fact that under Reagan and Bush Sr., the U.S. became the ONLY remaining superpower in the world. One man, that's all it takes. Just look at what Putin has done to Russia, from collapse to rising world power. Without someone to lead the way, there really is nothing but speculation as to any other outcome.

My Democratic Party is the Democratic Party which emerged in the Sixties, when LBJ led the Democrats into accepting and promoting civil rights. My Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party of two hundred years ago, the party which oppressed an entire race and entire generations because they looked different. My party is not what the Republican Party has become. When you get a Republican who can fight for gay rights, a woman's right to choose, cutting taxes for the middle class and freedom of religious expression to all denominations including those who aren't rooted in Christianity, then I'll support the Republican Party. But for now, I have the Democratic Party, and that's the party I plan to support until they personally screw me over.

So you fast forward past the positives in my party and negative in your's in order to arrive at what you feel to be the positive in your own and the negative in mine? Interesting. Not to mention the fact that this whole thing started when Matt claimed that the Democratic Party was the only one with a rich history. Keyword: History.

Ah well, if you want THIS can of worms, fine. The Republican Party created the Ammendments that gave all people equal rights to live. Your Democratic Party took that mantle up with Johnson and others. Reagam entered the picture and we became the Party of Ideas again.

The simple and undeniable fact of the matter is that the two Parties have traded the mantle several times but you can't deny the fact that the Republican Party has just a rich if not more so a legacy as the Democratic. Which is why this started in the first place, whether you'd like to admit it or not, but I could see why you wouldn't, seeing your unbridled and completely bizzare hate of the 'other side'. Apprently your method for getting rid of the 'Republican' way of things is to be just as partisan minded but it's okay because it's for the Democrats, right?

Right.:o

Genesis 1.0

01-31-2008, 12:35 PM

Let me tell you something as a non US citizen, you're NOT a beacon of hope in the world, on the contrary. Pretty much every other nation speaks of the US with a grumble in their voice and that's mainly because of your glorious Republican party.

The decline of the U.S. reputation in the world is well documented, but I'm sure you'll be absolutely shocked to know that it didn't start nor will it end, with simply my 'glorious' Republican Party. Tune the zealot down and try to actually research the facts. That little downward spiral has been in the works for years, including Democratic AND Republican rule.

As to the other point, the U.S. remains a beacon for many, simply because YOU don't see it that way doesn't mean you speak for the other several billion people on the planet. That is unless you've polled every living person the planet and detected a nasty grumble and if you have; I saulte your efforts.

Furthermore, you should be burning bright red with shame, sprouting party propaganda and buzz words like "the right to make your own decisions" and "living their own lives relatively free from government etc." when the same party that supposedly stands for these things is more interested in what 10% of the population do in their bedrooms in private, than how the average american is making ends meet. Fact is that your glorious GOP increased govermental power in the last 8 years in an amount unheard of before. Fact is, a strong basis of the same party wants to tell the rest of the populus how to run their lives to meet a standard routed in religious mythology. I don't see how that is in any way, shape or form compatible with the ideas of "the right to make your own decisions" and "living ones live free from government." Whatever history the GOP once posessed is long gone and dead. The new GOP is as much socialist as the Democrats are, they are just not left wing socialists.

Shame? I should be ashamed? No, can't say that I am, but I can say that I would be ashamed if I jumped onto a topic and started spouting anti-American/Religion propoganda in response to what I felt was pro-Republican propoganda. So let's take a breath and actually LOOK at this rationally.

The increase in government power came after a terrorist attack on American soil. I won't bother with all the details seeing as you might have heard about it, but suffice it to say it caused quite a stir and no little tension on Capitol Hill. Many of these increases were run by members of the Republican AND Democratic Party, so fudge on the whole 'Evil Republican' deal. These increases in government power were put in place to protect American lives from another attack. I can't really vouch for EVERY reason the Administration does something, but hey, if someone broke into my House and killed my daughter and my wife, well I'd probably do everything in my power to ensure it never happened again. New locks, better security, a gun, the whole nine to make sure that my only remaining child remaind alive. Same thing, larger scale.

Hypotheticals out of the way, I've already stated that my Republican Party has veered off course from it's roots, dually noted. This does not however mean that it's to blame for EVERYTHING that's gone wrong in America and abroad.

So the next time you chip a nail or that guy cuts you off on your way home, don't blame George Bush and the Republican Party. Sometimes bad things happen and surprise surprise, they had nothing to do with it.:cwink:

Genesis 1.0

01-31-2008, 12:40 PM

I dont see why that should be our responsibility....cant we be just another country....have some trade partners and keep our mouths shut....in the global scheme of things we have only been around a couple hundred years....

"With great power, comes great responsibility."

Damn you Uncle Ben, that was my line!:o

Anyway, before I was so rudely interrupted, being in the position that the U.S. is in, and was in years ago, it's our place to actually DO something positive with our power and status. It's why people like Bill Gates leaves enormous of amounts of money to charities and why some celebrities go to such lengths to help the worse off, although I don't get the whole adopting every kid under the sun, but I digress.

Once you get in a position to help others, you use it if you have any sense. If you've got fame, power, and money, you use that platform to help and raise awareness about the less fortunate and real crisises. Now I don't know if that's even a real word, but you get my drift.

If we didn't try to do the best we could with what we have, we'd actually be as rotten as some anti-____________ proclaim we are. Which is pretty damn bad.

teseract

01-31-2008, 12:41 PM

.... Reagam entered the picture and we became the Party of Ideas again...

Apprently your method for getting rid of the 'Republican' way of things is to be just as partisan minded but it's okay because it's for the Democrats, right?

Right.:o
What Ideas? Surveillance and police state? getting involved in peoples sexual lives and how they have to treat their body and so on and so on? That doesn't sound very "small government" to me. Sounds more like a "Nanny State", just not one steeped in "leftist ideas" but one more in terms of "traditional values". A Nanny state mentality is a Nanny State mentality, no matter if it is laisez fair liberal or draconic conservative. Both are deplorable, the conservative version more so in my opinion. All conservatives can do is prohibit this, regulate that and criminialize the rest. Conservatives are as far away from freedom as a cow is from understanding the physical properties of the grass it is chewing and you can damn believe that becoming partisan to get rid of that is a good idea.

Genesis 1.0

01-31-2008, 12:47 PM

What Ideas? Surveillance and police state? getting involved in peoples sexual lives and how they have to treat their body and so on and so on? That doesn't sound very "small government" to me. Sounds more like a "Nanny State", just not one steeped in "leftist ideas" but one more in terms of "traditional values". A Nanny state mentality is a Nanny State mentality, no matter if it is laisez fair liberal or draconic conservative. Both are deplorable, the conservative version more so in my opinion. All conservatives can do is prohibit this, regulate that and criminialize the rest. Conservatives are as far away from freedom as a cow is from understanding the physical properties of the grass it is chewing and you can damn believe that becoming partisan to get rid of that is a good idea.

I really don't see the point of trying to explain to you the intricacies of these policies and what seperates them from a 'Nanny State' but it's become quite evident that it's not that you don't get it, it's that you don't want to get it. I haven't seen someone try NOT to see the other side so hard in a while.

Exemplified in the fact that you seem to think that being partisan is the solution to overly partisan politics. Replace a child molester with a murderer and you seem to think it's fine because it's a different evil. Pfffft.

teseract

01-31-2008, 01:14 PM

The decline of the U.S. reputation in the world is well documented, but I'm sure you'll be absolutely shocked to know that it didn't start nor will it end, with simply my 'glorious' Republican Party. Tune the zealot down and try to actually research the facts. That little downward spiral has been in the works for years, including Democratic AND Republican rule.

As to the other point, the U.S. remains a beacon for many, simply because YOU don't see it that way doesn't mean you speak for the other several billion people on the planet. That is unless you've polled every living person the planet and detected a nasty grumble and if you have; I saulte your effort.

Oh I detected a grumble in quite a lot, especially in those countries that were "traditionally" US Allies. Heck, even your "biggest Ally" the english are vehemently critizising the United States.

Shame? I should be ashamed? No, can't say that I am, but I can say that I would be ashamed if I jumped onto a topic and started spouting anti-American/Religion propoganda in response to what I felt was pro-Republican propoganda. So let's take a breath and actually LOOK at this rationally.

Interesting, it's anti-American now to call the big fat lies of the Republican party what they are? Everytime a Repub sprouts off about "small government" and "personal freedom" he lies boldly into the face of the person he is talking to. Repubs are NOT small government, they are not the party of personal freedom. Heck, they hate the concept with a passion. As for anti-Religious, you bet I am, I can't stand religion, especially when it tries to interfere with "freedom" for the sake of its own convoluted mythology. Religion is inherently fascistic and will always be the enemy of true freedom. And since the GOP basis constitutes of the religious right I'd say "freedom" and Republican are mutually exclusive.

The increase in government power came after a terrorist attack on American soil. I won't bother with all the details seeing as you might have heard about it, but suffice it to say it caused quite a stir and no little tension on Capitol Hill. Many of these increases were run by members of the Republican AND Democratic Party, so fudge on the whole 'Evil Republican' deal. These increases in government power were put in place to protect American lives from another attack. I can't really vouch for EVERY reason the Administration does something, but hey, if someone broke into my House and killed my daughter and my wife, well I'd probably do everything in my power to ensure it never happened again. New locks, better security, a gun, the whole nine to make sure that my only remaining child remaind alive. Same thing, larger scale.

Unimportant! "Small Government", remember, not Nanny State (as in a Nanny that keeps you secure and comfy), small Government as in "living your life according to your own ideas and only with little government involvement". You can't have it both ways. You either are for small Government or you're not. Surveillance, increased government power and so on and so on, go against these principles no matter how noble the intentions are. Heck, the Democrat' ideas are very noble too in terms of legitimacy of a Nanny State. An adequate live for all, good income even for poor people, participation and sharing fo common goods. Good and noble ideas and yet Repubs say they are bad because they are "big Government". But when the GOP does it to "protect" and instill "traditional values" it's suddenly all nice and dandy. Talk about a double standard. The GOP and its voters traded freedom for security and we both know what one who does so deserves according to Franklin, don't we?

Hypotheticals out of the way, I've already stated that my Republican Party has veered off course from it's roots, dually noted. This does not however mean that it's to blame for EVERYTHING that's gone wrong in America and abroad.

And that's why it needs a big fat slap in the face and the best way to do so is to make them loose the election. Otherwise they will continue with the same **** and never come back to what they SHOULD be (if they ever were).

So the next time you chip a nail or that guy cuts you off on your way home, don't blame George Bush and the Republican Party. Sometimes bad things happen and surprise surprise, they had nothing to do with it.:cwink:

They have a LOT to do with the things that irk me in terms of US politics especially when it comes to "individual and civil rights"

teseract

01-31-2008, 01:20 PM

I really don't see the point of trying to explain to you the intricacies of these policies and what seperates them from a 'Nanny State' but it's become quite evident that it's not that you don't get it, it's that you don't want to get it. I haven't seen someone try NOT to see the other side so hard in a while.

Exemplified in the fact that you seem to think that being partisan is the solution to overly partisan politics. Replace a child molester with a murderer and you seem to think it's fine because it's a different evil. Pfffft.

A Nanny state is by devinition a state that tells it people how to act, what to think, takes care of them from cradle to grave and treats them like "little children" which need to be protected from the big bad world. That protection can be left wing as in "give them cloth and everything they need" or right wing "police every behavior, idea and thought in case it might harm anyone". That's not freedom and that's not what the people of the US need!

But I'm eager to listen, how is it not "Big Government" to listen in to the phone conversations of citizens because one of them could do something harmful. How is it not "Big Government" to tell two people they can't have sex with each other, even though both are consenting adults, how ist it not "Big Government" to tell people what substance they can put into THEIR body? Where is the "personal freedom" in that? Are the people of the US such little children that they need a "Nanny" to prevent them from doing all this?

As for not getting it, no you're not getting that a Nanny State isn#t just a left wing option and that the GOP has its own version of the "Nanny State" developed by now. Big Government is and remains Big Government no matter what the reason.

Sometimes you have the choice between Pestilence and Cholera, And the US had enough Pestilence for now, time to try it with Cholera.

hippie_hunter

01-31-2008, 01:45 PM

True, however, the US had at least a shred of dignity left during the Clinton years. The tenor here in my Country was quite favorable back then, sure the US had their faults but people were willing to overlook them. Then Bush came and the whole attitude towards the US changed dramatically.

That's because Bush is an *******. Whoever gets elected next, Republican or Democrat is bound to be a better President than he was.

teseract

01-31-2008, 01:57 PM

That's because Bush is an *******. Whoever gets elected next, Republican or Democrat is bound to be a better President than he was.
I agree about Bush

Oh I do hope so, allthough McCain is doing his best to come off as Bush 02

Funny thing is, I can't even stand the Dems, yet I can stand the Gop even less and that's because they always tout this personal freedom, small Government bull****, yet do the total opposite.

CorpusBlack

01-31-2008, 04:10 PM

The US will never elect a female or black candidate. That's the [perhaps] unfortunate truth about this country.

I disagree.

The Senator

01-31-2008, 06:39 PM

I disagree.

I agree with your disagreement. I have a feeling both will happen in my lifetime. I also have a feeling that there will be a prominent gay candidate who runs for national office (though I don't think we'll have a gay president before I'm dead and gone).

Genesis 1.0

01-31-2008, 07:10 PM

Oh I detected a grumble in quite a lot, especially in those countries that were "traditionally" US Allies. Heck, even your "biggest Ally" the english are vehemently critizising the United States.

Okay so let's be clear, you're obviously relying on what you see on television and it's a pretty well known fact that it's impossible to get an unbiased report on a corrupt government from a corrupt media. In any case, there has never beena nd will never be any 'ally' that has the total agreement of all it's people, there are always people who will 'grumble' about anything.

Interesting, it's anti-American now to call the big fat lies of the Republican party what they are? Everytime a Repub sprouts off about "small government" and "personal freedom" he lies boldly into the face of the person he is talking to. Repubs are NOT small government, they are not the party of personal freedom. Heck, they hate the concept with a passion. As for anti-Religious, you bet I am, I can't stand religion, especially when it tries to interfere with "freedom" for the sake of its own convoluted mythology. Religion is inherently fascistic and will always be the enemy of true freedom. And since the GOP basis constitutes of the religious right I'd say "freedom" and Republican are mutually exclusive.

Heh, how can a zealot pull the zealot card? Trying to color me in as just as extreme as you are is pretty useless. I've pointed out the positives and negatives of my Party. You, have had nothing but negativity and shown a willingness to only continue your political butchery. People with nothing more than complaints, never a viable solution to the problem, just as bad, if not worse than what you're arguing against. So don't feed me that 'So it's wrong to call a lie a lie' stuff.

And I can't help but notice your sweeping generalizations. As far as you're concerned, every Republican is nothing more than a lying sack of scum without any moral compass. All those with a Religion want to burn infants at the stake if they show any homosexual tendecies. That's quite a sweep and critcally flawed, it's no longer an opinion, it's just wrong. Your posts reek not of distaste or the reasoning of a rational political minded individual, but of simple hate. Ah but somehow, you seem to feel you're somehow in the right, but God knows it's not the right wing.

Unimportant! "Small Government", remember, not Nanny State (as in a Nanny that keeps you secure and comfy), small Government as in "living your life according to your own ideas and only with little government involvement". You can't have it both ways. You either are for small Government or you're not. Surveillance, increased government power and so on and so on, go against these principles no matter how noble the intentions are. Heck, the Democrat' ideas are very noble too in terms of legitimacy of a Nanny State. An adequate live for all, good income even for poor people, participation and sharing fo common goods. Good and noble ideas and yet Repubs say they are bad because they are "big Government". But when the GOP does it to "protect" and instill "traditional values" it's suddenly all nice and dandy. Talk about a double standard. The GOP and its voters traded freedom for security and we both know what one who does so deserves according to Franklin, don't we?

Errrr, Unimportant? So you see something you don't agree with and can't debate properly and all of sudden it's unimportant. So it's your view that NO new security measures needed to be taken? So basically let a burglar break in, murder your family and in response you change nothing. Hell, why not leave that door unlocked and tie your family to the bed for easier access? Knowing a critical flaw, a weakness, an opening that's not just a possibility, but that's been used in the past to cause pain, sorrow, and anguish and doing NOTHING is worse than doing the WRONG thing. Or in this case, overdoing the right thing.

It's clear that were you President, your policy of Non-Action would have easily resulted in the endangerment and loss of life for millions. But at least you wouldn't have to worry about being labeled a 'Dictator' or leader of a Nanny Government. Riiight.

And that's why it needs a big fat slap in the face and the best way to do so is to make them loose the election. Otherwise they will continue with the same **** and never come back to what they SHOULD be (if they ever were).

It's a FACT that they were, that is if you actually read through the short summary of what this Party was founded on. As to whether they still are now is a subject I can see is pointless to debate with you who wouldn't see a forest for a single tree.

As to a wake up call, that came with the Democratic Congress. Speaking of which, said Congress' ratings, ruled by the Party you feel is so very superior, has even LOWER ratings than the PRESIDENT. But you're going to ignore that too, right? Your theory of Republican corruption couldn't possibly withstand the blow.

They have a LOT to do with the things that irk me in terms of US politics especially when it comes to "individual and civil rights"

It seems that the things that irk you are the very same issues that you yourself posess but you seem to be eerily unaware of the fact. You've spouted just as much hate and propoganda as the Republican war machine you claim to despise so very much.

Ironic, no?

Genesis 1.0

01-31-2008, 07:13 PM

A Nanny state is by devinition a state that tells it people how to act, what to think, takes care of them from cradle to grave and treats them like "little children" which need to be protected from the big bad world. That protection can be left wing as in "give them cloth and everything they need" or right wing "police every behavior, idea and thought in case it might harm anyone". That's not freedom and that's not what the people of the US need!

But I'm eager to listen, how is it not "Big Government" to listen in to the phone conversations of citizens because one of them could do something harmful. How is it not "Big Government" to tell two people they can't have sex with each other, even though both are consenting adults, how ist it not "Big Government" to tell people what substance they can put into THEIR body? Where is the "personal freedom" in that? Are the people of the US such little children that they need a "Nanny" to prevent them from doing all this?

As for not getting it, no you're not getting that a Nanny State isn#t just a left wing option and that the GOP has its own version of the "Nanny State" developed by now. Big Government is and remains Big Government no matter what the reason.

Sometimes you have the choice between Pestilence and Cholera, And the US had enough Pestilence for now, time to try it with Cholera.

I won't bother reducing this one to ash, as I've already done that to the former and this particular post is just the regurgutation of the last. That last quote however is striking and porves the point that I've been pointing to since this all began.

You actually think that replacing one Evil for another is justified. You feel that spreading YOUR brand of hate is better than the right wing extremist spreading THEIRS. You seem to think that the Democratic failings and flaws, which are just as numerous and disgusting, are a non-issue next to the Party that you detest so very much.

You can't replace a child molester with a murderer and sleep well at night unless you're well, you, I suppose. Either way, it still doesn't make it right.

Golgo-13

01-31-2008, 07:16 PM

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.primary/art.mccain.fl.win.afp.gi.jpg

It's all but guaranteed at this point. The US will never elect a female or black candidate. That's the [perhaps] unfortunate truth about this country. Anyway, I really want to make this thread so that I can bump it and say "I told you so" by the end of the year.

I'm kinda with Chuck Norris on McCain; he's got one foot in the grave already. And yes, America IS tired of Bush, and Mccain is like Bush incarnated imo, but unfortunately there are still closed minded ppl in this country that would rather have another Bush running this country, as oppose to an African American or a woman. Sad, but true. I actually heard on a radio station that some ppl claim they'll change from Democrat to Republican, if Obama wins super Tuesday and gets the nomination, because they'd rather vote for the 'traditional looking' American leader, rather than a new faced one.:whatever:

LuiECuomo

01-31-2008, 07:17 PM

What difference does it make if we ever have a homosexual president?

Golgo-13

01-31-2008, 07:20 PM

What difference does it make if we ever have a homosexual president?

To those in power; those that have all the money; those that control things from behind the scenes and make deals behind close doors - that will never happen.

LuiECuomo

01-31-2008, 07:23 PM

I'm kinda with Chuck Norris on McCain; he's got one foot in the grave already. And yes, America IS tired of Bush, and Mccain is like Bush incarnated imo, but unfortunately there are still closed minded ppl in this country that would rather have another Bush running this country, as oppose to an African American or a woman. Sad, but true. I actually heard on a radio station that some ppl claim they'll change from Democrat to Republican, if Obama wins super Tuesday and gets the nomination, because they'd rather vote for the 'traditional looking' American leader, rather than a new faced one.:whatever:

So wait, are you implying that you'd actually vote for a candidate based solely on their race or gender? That's incredibly racist and sexist.

Golgo-13

01-31-2008, 07:32 PM

So wait, are you implying that you'd actually vote for a candidate based solely on their race or gender? That's incredibly racist and sexist.

:huh: I'm with Norris on the sole point that McCains too old.

And no, i wouldn't vote for a candidate simply because of their race or gender, but as an Armed Service man, i'm tired of fighting wars designed by old white men, that sit around and move young Americans' sons and daughters lives around on the battle field, like they're playing chess. And are too full of Pride to admit defeat, simply because of their ego's.:cmad:

LuiECuomo

01-31-2008, 07:49 PM

Kel

01-31-2008, 08:19 PM

I only consider myself a Democrat because they suck less.

Go independent, and you don't smell either......:yay:

teseract

01-31-2008, 08:25 PM

I won't bother reducing this one to ash, as I've already done that to the former and this particular post is just the regurgutation of the last. That last quote however is striking and porves the point that I've been pointing to since this all began.

You actually think that replacing one Evil for another is justified. You feel that spreading YOUR brand of hate is better than the right wing extremist spreading THEIRS. You seem to think that the Democratic failings and flaws, which are just as numerous and disgusting, are a non-issue next to the Party that you detest so very much.

You can't replace a child molester with a murderer and sleep well at night unless you're well, you, I suppose. Either way, it still doesn't make it right.

You have turned nothing to ash, You simply ignored everything I said except my last statement. But that's okay I won't have to deal with the Republican party in the future since their policies don't influence my life anyway. It's just sad that there are no true "Small Government" people left it's all party allegiance nowadays, no matter how many control freaks want to instill their ideologies of what is "prim and proper" and destroy personal freedom.

As for the Dems, they are evil, but they are the lesser evil, at least the try to give people more civil rights instead of taking them away and since there is pretty much no other option than to choose one of the two evils in the US I'd say you go with the lesser one. Imho. this election needs to be an anti-republican election not "who is the better" since both suck, the Republicans however suck more at the moment. They should start to clean up their act again and truly stand for "small Government" and "personal freedom" instead of being a mouthpiece for the American Taliban.

Golgo-13

01-31-2008, 08:37 PM

First off, let me just say that I admire your service to our country.

However, I don't get it. What difference does it make if the person running the country happens to be black or a woman? I thought one of the keystones of the Democratic party is that we're all equal and that we're all capable of making the same decisions. So why is that race and gender factor into the equation HERE? ;)

Well, i just see nominating yet another Republican into the white house as a keystone to having yet another 4 years of what we've had during the Bush administration; which is a laundry list of headaches for the next President to clean up. I'm not gonna vote for Hilary or Obama, simply because one's black and/or the others a woman. If a white guy was running for President, and was a democrat i'd vote for him, as i did with Kerry 4 years ago. It's the Republicans as a party i'm discontent with, not so much the individuals. So race plays no factor in my voting decision, just party affiliation.

LuiECuomo

01-31-2008, 08:59 PM

Well, i just see nominating yet another Republican into the white house as a keystone to having yet another 4 years of what we've had during the Bush administration; which is a laundry list of headaches for the next President to clean up. I'm not gonna vote for Hilary or Obama, simply because one's black and/or the others a woman. If a white guy was running for President, and was a democrat i'd vote for him, as i did with Kerry 4 years ago. It's the Republicans as a party i'm discontent with, not so much the individuals. So race plays no factor in my voting decision, just party affiliation.

Okay, I understand now. It just seemed that in your initial post you were pointing out that people should be more inclined to vote for either a woman or a black man than the same "old white males." If that was your intention, then that would in fact have been racist and sexist. I'm glad it wasn't.

kronos251

02-01-2008, 03:08 AM

To all voters :

Regardless of race, age, gender, religious affiliation, and/or political allegiance, Vote for the candidate who can deliver results - who can fully understand the logistics of an economy as to a sub-prime crisis, the factor of interest rates and the dealings of Fed Reserve/Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac.

That candidate must also consider the intricacies of immigration problems (as 12 million or so illegals are incorporated already in the US economy), who is also capable diplomatically and militarily speaking in terms of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria (Hezbollah), Hamas, North Korea, the global Al-Qaeda network etc., and must confront OPEC as one fact cannot be removed that oil was and still remains the universal primary source of energy: from cars to tractors to forklifters to space shuttles - almost everything runs on oil. Once the oil shoots up, everything shoots up - costs on country produce, consumer items, propane gas reserves, real estate value, etc. etc. .... which influence salary hikes and thus resulting to stagflation. Oil price volatility is historically the deciding factor on the Global (not just US) economy, and the political atmosphere around the world. The future president must also discern a slowing economy from a recession.

The key here is .. . research, research, research.

All those concerned in casting their vote should look into statistical economic graphs, and domestic and global events from the 60's, 70s, 80s, 90s to present time. Rely on cold hard data, and not just the opinion of a reporter or a political analyst or a newspaper. Biases do more harm than good. Be a respectable independent thinker, and take everything with a grain of salt. Look for the candidate who can deliver the best and honest results on the issues at hand.

And for goodness sakes vote for the candidate, not the party.

As for former and incumbent presidents, please do refrain from blaming them. They are not the ones who are running. Focus on the ones who are.

BlackLantern

02-01-2008, 10:17 AM

First off, let me just say that I admire your service to our country.

However, I don't get it. What difference does it make if the person running the country happens to be black or a woman? I thought one of the keystones of the Democratic party is that we're all equal and that we're all capable of making the same decisions. So why is that race and gender factor into the equation HERE? ;)

Because a lot of people in this country stll consider women and people of color inferior. The reason the republicans will probably win this election AGAIN is because while all the liberals and dems are doing their caucuses and signing petitions, those red staters in the south and middle america are simply waiting for election day.......and they will deliver mccain into the White House

Damiean Dark

02-01-2008, 10:31 AM

Darkly Dexter

02-01-2008, 10:57 AM

And for goodness sakes vote for the candidate, not the party.

For goodness sake vote the ideas, not the candidate, not the party.

bell110

02-01-2008, 11:25 AM

hippie_hunter

02-01-2008, 11:32 AM

When Ann Caulter hates the republican nominee so much she states she would support Hilary against him you know they are in trouble did you see Hannity and Combs last night?

All Mccain has is his war record it isnt enough to take the white house the people want "change" aesthetically and literally the democrats whoever the nominee will win imo.

Wow...really know nothing about McCain. He has much more than his war record. He has 24 years of experience in national politics and served his country since 1958. He represents someone who can work with both Republicans and Democrats and his voting record and history prove it with his campaign finance reform and immigration bills. He represents being a conservative with common sense with his support for enviromental protection, a balanced budget and the need for cutting spending, reasonable gun control, opposes torture, criticized the Bush Administration for its faulty handling of the Iraq War, etc. He's sponsored and authored several bills in Congress.

Obama and Clinton have been in the Senate for a relatively short time and have done absolutely nothing significant. Clinton is running simply because of her own ambition and she only has a political career because of her husband. She won't really get anything done because Republicans have a massive disdain for her husband. Obama is running because of the fact that he'll be forgotten by 2012 and is riding on the momentum that was given to him in 2004, while he comes off as a person who wants to do good things for the people he's too much of a noob with no true platform (Hope, Change, and Unity is not a platform), has bad ideas (ethanol subsidies, leaving 5,000 troops in Iraq, universal health care, wants to cut NASA,), and won't get anything really done because he's too liberal for the Republicans in Congress.

BlackLantern

02-01-2008, 11:33 AM

i agree with Hippie Hunter on this one....Obama simply doesnt have the chops for the job...he's a good public speaker with noble ideas and thats about it

Genesis 1.0

02-01-2008, 01:05 PM

You have turned nothing to ash, You simply ignored everything I said except my last statement. But that's okay I won't have to deal with the Republican party in the future since their policies don't influence my life anyway. It's just sad that there are no true "Small Government" people left it's all party allegiance nowadays, no matter how many control freaks want to instill their ideologies of what is "prim and proper" and destroy personal freedom.

As for the Dems, they are evil, but they are the lesser evil, at least the try to give people more civil rights instead of taking them away and since there is pretty much no other option than to choose one of the two evils in the US I'd say you go with the lesser one. Imho. this election needs to be an anti-republican election not "who is the better" since both suck, the Republicans however suck more at the moment. They should start to clean up their act again and truly stand for "small Government" and "personal freedom" instead of being a mouthpiece for the American Taliban.

This just exemplifies what I've been saying about your warped and hateful point of view, if you can call it that. YOU feel this election shouldn't be about the issues, shouldn't be about the issues, it shouldn't be about what will affect the people voting, no, what YOU feel it SHOULD be about is ANTI-Republican? You specifically said it shouldn't be about who's actually the better candidate. This is by and far the most ridiculous thing I've heard from any one member of this Forum.

This actually goes beyond you being simply partsian, you're one of those left wing nuts dennoucing the policies of those you feel are right wing nuts in the Bush administration. Now just how in the hell does THAT make any sense?:huh:

kronos251

02-02-2008, 05:31 AM

For goodness sake vote the ideas, not the candidate, not the party.
Like bell110 said, the ideas come from the candidate's noggin.

As voters, we must bear in mind and be responsible for the person we're electing into office. Otherwise, we are all damned hypocrites.

Matt

02-02-2008, 11:41 AM

Kel

02-02-2008, 11:45 AM

Ya gotta play what you got in your hand.....

rdh007

02-02-2008, 11:52 AM

I hate to jinx things, but this out of touch-ness (not a word, I know) that the Republicans display by nominating a guy who freely admits the economy is not his bag, baby; when the economy is the #1 issue in some polls and a really high one in most polls of what people care about makes me think it'll be a little like '92 with "Its the economy, stupid."

Matt

02-02-2008, 11:56 AM

Ya gotta play what you got in your hand.....

Still, he sounds ridiculous. At least word it in a better way.

J. J. Jameson

02-02-2008, 12:35 PM

I really don't see McCain winning. He's too much like Bush and says one thing, but the votes another way.

He has the best chance of winning if he's against Clinton. Enough people dislike Clinton enough to vote for McCain. But if it's McCain vs. Obama, Obama has the better chance of winning. Just look at the guy...he looks, sounds, and acts like a statesmen and he wants change. Obama in office should, theoretically, greatly lessen that hanging cloud of racism that still exists in certain places or that has been tagged on to the American name.

The Senator

02-02-2008, 03:32 PM

I think voters are going to realize later on in the election that McCain is bat**** insane. He wants to keep us in Iraq for one hundred years? Don't over 60% of voters want us out today? He wants to engage us militarily with Iran? Don't the same number of voters want us to pursue diplomatic relations instead? He knows nothing of the economy? Isn't the economy the number one issue among current primary voters?

Not only does Walnuts have to deal with that, but then there's the age problem. Many people think he can communicate. But over the course of this campaign, he seems like he tires out faster than the other candidates. After New Hampshire, he was charismatic, loud and boisterous. After South Carolina, he was loud and partially boisterous. With Florida, he gave a soft, soothing speech. But at the debate, he was off key, noticeably tired and worn out. That will have to gain considerable media and voter attention over time.

The Professor

02-02-2008, 03:36 PM

The Obama/Edwards ticket has the potential to beat McCain.

BlackLantern

02-02-2008, 05:31 PM

the coasts might want us out of this war, but Middle America and the South still have that support the president/war/troops mentality.....

hippie_hunter

02-02-2008, 05:34 PM

I find it funny how conservatives complain that McCain is a Democrat-wannabe liberal and how liberals think that he's another George W. Bush :p

The Professor

02-02-2008, 05:34 PM

Matt

02-02-2008, 07:26 PM

I find it funny how conservatives complain that McCain is a Democrat-wannabe liberal and how liberals think that he's another George W. Bush :p

Hey H_H, I know you were both annoyed by Rudy's constant 9/11 flaunting and a McCain supporter...so what did you make of this exchange?

McCain sounds like such an ass in these debates.

Moderator: Governor Romney is a successful business man. What makes you more qualified to fix the economy than him?

McCain: Leadership. I'm a leader. I led the biggest squadren in the Navy.

God, he is playing the military card more than Rudy played 9/11.

hippie_hunter

02-02-2008, 08:37 PM

Hey H_H, I know you were both annoyed by Rudy's constant 9/11 flaunting and a McCain supporter...so what did you make of this exchange?

I didn't hear how McCain said it so I can't make a proper judgement. But from the looks of it, it just simply looked like a dumb answer. A really, really dumb answer that had nothing to do with the question.

However I disagree over how McCain flaunts the military card. With Rudy until the very, very last moment his entire campaign was just "a verb, a noun, and 9/11." McCain's campaign is more than just his military career and his status as a Vietnam POW vet. I see his campaign as multiple attempts to reach out to conservatives by pointing out the need for fiscal conservativism, his pro-life voting record, the need to be strong on the War on Terror, and beleiving that we need to stay in Iraq to be more relevant in McCain's campaign than his military record.

Superman

02-02-2008, 09:07 PM

McCain sounds like such an ass in these debates.

Moderator: Governor Romney is a successful business man. What makes you more qualified to fix the economy than him?

McCain: Leadership. I'm a leader. I led the biggest squadren in the Navy.

God, he is playing the military card more than Rudy played 9/11.It just kills me that McCain and Romney was arguing about who would stay in Iraq longer. Don't these two idiots know that we want out of Iraq?:whatever:

BlackLantern

02-02-2008, 09:10 PM

It just kills me that McCain and Romney was arguing about who would stay in Iraq longer. Don't these two idiots know that we want out of Iraq?:whatever:

their mindset is "getting the job done"....not want some people want.....i hoped we would get a democratic president but it doesnt look that way. I honestly feel McCain is going to win in a tight race

J. J. Jameson

02-02-2008, 09:16 PM

their mindset is "getting the job done"....not want some people want.....i hoped we would get a democratic president but it doesnt look that way. I honestly feel McCain is going to win in a tight race

Really? I just really find it hard to believe that a plurality of the American public would vote Republican again...what with the economy and war right now.

I can handle Obama or McCain in office...just so long as it's not Hillary. Please no...

Malice

02-02-2008, 09:18 PM

Really? I just really find it hard to believe that a plurality of the American public would vote Republican again...what with the economy and war right now.

I can handle Obama or McCain in office...just so long as it's not Hillary. Please no...

I dont see voting rep a problem...just blind people leading.

J. J. Jameson

02-02-2008, 09:24 PM

I dont see voting rep a problem...just blind people leading.

I wasn't implying I had a problem with the Republicans. Or for that matter, Democrats. I care about who is the person in the position. I completely agree that blind leaders are a problem (duh.) But what I meant was, the Republican strategy as of late, especially with the war, hasn't been sitting well with the American people.

Superman4ever

02-03-2008, 12:00 AM

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 12:03 AM

:down

I'll take some of that action, *****! :cmad:

hundi-spot that McCain doesn't win!

If McCain wins I'm moving to Baghdad...

slap it down on the table Hoss.....lots of people in this country still think that women and minorities are inferior and most of those people vote.....as a black man, I would love to see a minority president, but I honestly do not think Obama has the chops for the job. Our next president is going to be expected to clean up a hell of a mess

Damiean Dark

02-03-2008, 03:27 AM

I wouldnt mind Obama but Clinton has the experiannce and inner steele that shows she would be a tough but fair president i think she would beat any candidate out there.

LuiECuomo

02-03-2008, 03:32 AM

I would consider voting for a minority candidate when 1) we get one with actual experience, and 2) we get one that doesn't purposely try to PLAY UP the fact that he's black. Give me a break.

Damiean Dark

02-03-2008, 03:57 AM

Zen

02-03-2008, 10:37 AM

1)I agree Obama lacks experiance this is why i would vote Clinton. i still think he could be lock for the whitehouse in 8 years time

2)What do you want the guy to say "Im not Black" ? its America race in the US is still a hot topic your country is probably the most instremental in the inslavement of his race reducing them to work horses for hundreds of years and you only gave them civil rights until very recently. no Ethnic presidential nominee, black, hispanic whatever, should ever downplay thier race imo dont shout it from the rooftops but also dont try to be something your not.

how does hillarys couple more years experience in the senate compared to Obama illustrate a giant gap of experience between the two? im just curious...

how much experience is conferred by being married to the president?

Do you guys trully think either of these candidates are playing the race/gender card anymore then the other?

Kel

02-03-2008, 10:39 AM

You don't look at the years in the Senate, you look at the committees they are a part of in the Senate...voting does not give you experience, committee membership does.......

Hillary Clinton
Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services
Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health
Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging

Barak Obama
Member, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

They are very close as far as the time and areas they spent the majority of their time in.......

They both have strong records in the areas they have chosen.....

Venom'sDad

02-03-2008, 12:46 PM

how does hillarys couple more years experience in the senate compared to Obama illustrate a giant gap of experience between the two? im just curious...

how much experience is conferred by being married to the president?

hillary supporters have been trying to undermind Obama's experience, when the fact of the matter is, he has much more experience than she does. As a matter of fact, if one was to truely compare all 8 of the democrat candidates... one would find that she has the least. Even behind Gravel... just look honestly at it. She has none, she has the Clinton name.

The Senator

02-03-2008, 12:55 PM

hillary supporters have been trying to undermind Obama's experience, when the fact of the matter is, he has much more experience than she does. As a matter of fact, if one was to truely compare all 8 of the democrat candidates... one would find that she has the least. Even behind Gravel... just look honestly at it. She has none, she has the Clinton name.

Seven years in the United States Senate vs. three... there's a difference of four years there, and I'm not counting the important, dignitary position of First Lady, either. Also, being a former New York resident, she didn't just go to the Senate to play dress up and stand around for seven years. She actually co-sponsored important legislation which added jobs to my region of the country, cut taxes to struggling businesses, and so on and so forth. The only two pieces of legislation I can name of Obama's were utter failures. One was an anti-lobbyist bill which had several major loopholes, therefore not really doing anything about the so-called lobbyist problem in Washington; and the other was on nuclear waste storage and power plant repairs... which was edited so much by the time it made it to the floor, it bared no resemblance to the original bill.

So...what exactly are you using to measure Barry Hussein's experience? His State Senate record? Really? The last person who ran on state/ local credentials was Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew, who quite honestly was one of the worst VPs in U.S. history.

Kel

02-03-2008, 02:03 PM

Some really need to read up on their choices, and I'm not calling names.....its just a general statement.....here is a site where you can get indepth information on the senators as far as their voting records etc.....

Barak Obama: http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490

Hillary Clinton: http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=55463

John McCain: http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=53270

Mitt Romney: http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=21942

Mike Huckabee: http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=1657

http://www.ontheissues.org/

http://www.expertvoter.org/

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 02:20 PM

Kel

02-03-2008, 02:29 PM

Read alittle more....

The Senator

02-03-2008, 02:38 PM

She riders her husbands coat tails too much. She acts like she has all the experience when really she hasn't been a senator all that long. Much of what she accomplished was from her husband's Presidency.

She's been a Senator for seven years. Politicians seeking the Presidency have a shelf life of no more than twelve years. LBJ was the last President elected who had accumulated more than twelve years of political experience at the national level. John Kerry was in his third Senate term in 2004; he lost. Al Gore had been in politics since the 1970s; he lost. Walter Mondale was either at the end of his second term or at the beginning of his third when Carter picked him for VP; he lost his race for the presidency.

In contrast, Bush had six years under his belt as Governor; Clinton had ten years; Reagan and Carter had eight; Bush Sr. had twelve, counting the Vice Presidency... it goes on and on.

But, it's stupid and nonsensical to argue that Obama has more experience than Hillary, especially when the basis of that argument is using his tenure as a state legislator. That's like if someone was a county executive from Nowheres County, Montana for eight years, then became a Senator and ran for President two years later. What good does that experience do for the rest of the country? It doesn't do much, so to run on it is flawed and asinine.

Also, if you're going to count Obama's tenure as a state legislator, then I think it's fair to count Hillary's service as an attorney, first lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the United States-- which counts for over twenty-five years worth of experience, over Obama's eleven.

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 02:40 PM

for the exception of Bush Sr. all of our Presidents the last 20 or so years have been Governors

The Senator

02-03-2008, 02:43 PM

for the exception of Bush Sr. all of our Presidents the last 20 or so years have been Governors

It looks like the next President will be a Senator, and we haven't elected a Senator to the Presidency since JFK.

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 02:45 PM

Looks that way...unless Romney suddenly can make everyone remember that he is actuallly running for President....he seems to be the forgotten candidate these days

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 02:49 PM

She's been a Senator for seven years. Politicians seeking the Presidency have a shelf life of no more than twelve years. LBJ was the last President elected who had accumulated more than twelve years of political experience at the national level. John Kerry was in his third Senate term in 2004; he lost. Al Gore had been in politics since the 1970s; he lost. Walter Mondale was either at the end of his second term or at the beginning of his third when Carter picked him for VP; he lost his race for the presidency.

In contrast, Bush had six years under his belt as Governor; Clinton had ten years; Reagan and Carter had eight; Bush Sr. had twelve, counting the Vice Presidency... it goes on and on.

But, it's stupid and nonsensical to argue that Obama has more experience than Hillary, especially when the basis of that argument is using his tenure as a state legislator. That's like if someone was a county executive from Nowheres County, Montana for eight years, then became a Senator and ran for President two years later. What good does that experience do for the rest of the country? It doesn't do much, so to run on it is flawed and asinine.

Also, if you're going to count Obama's tenure as a state legislator, then I think it's fair to count Hillary's service as an attorney, first lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the United States-- which counts for over twenty-five years worth of experience, over Obama's eleven.

I'm not counting First Lady as experience... Sorry. Not applicable. I'm counting how long she has been a senator and how long Obama has been a senator. Thus the argument about "experience" vs "change" is silly. Counting first lady experience is laughable.

The Senator

02-03-2008, 02:55 PM

I'm not counting First Lady as experience... Sorry. Not applicable. I'm counting how long she has been a senator and how long Obama has been a senator. Thus the argument about "experience" vs "change" is silly. Counting first lady experience is laughable.

Fine. You're still wrong, then, because Clinton has seven years experience vs. three years.

Also, look at her voting record, and compare it to his. It's like comparing a Whopper to a chicken nugget.

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 02:56 PM

being a First Lady is damn good experience as to how things run in the White House and the executive branch....whether you consider it relevant or not

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:01 PM

Fine. You're still wrong, then, because Clinton has seven years experience vs. three years.

Also, look at her voting record, and compare it to his. It's like comparing a Whopper to a chicken nugget.

My point isn't about Obama being more experienced. My point is about Hillary overstating HER experience. The whole "experience" vs "change" argument is silly. First Lady may be respectable but to count that in as your "experience" is ridiculous. She did not win any election for that, she simply married the President. It's funny how now that Bill's over zealous campaigning back fired, she makes it clear that the President's responsibility is separate from the spouse and she understands that from her time as First Lady :o

Kel

02-03-2008, 03:04 PM

My point isn't about Obama being more experienced. My point is about Hillary overstating HER experience. The whole "experience" vs "change" argument is silly. First Lady may be respectable but to count that in as your "experience" is ridiculous. She did not win any election for that, she simply married the President. It's funny how now that Bill's over zealous campaigning back fired, she makes it clear that the President's responsibility is separate from the spouse and she understands that from her time as First Lady :o

I think Eleanor Roosevelt, after FDR's death, and history would disagree with you on that....

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 03:07 PM

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:09 PM

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 03:12 PM

it gives her an insight on the process though.....insight that the other candidates dont have

The Senator

02-03-2008, 03:14 PM

Even go that far back for an example. Sure, she would be of importance in handling the death of her husband a great President. Would that be notable experience in being able to handle the Presidency? I still can't see how they would connect to making important decisions. I believe it was Truman who brought stability as successor correct?

Okay, then look at Edith Wilson, who history has regarded as essentially the first female President. After Woodrow had a stroke, she started taking over the executive branch. She commuted the sentence of a convicted murderer, and was responsible for making several policy decisions on his behalf.

History regards the First Lady as being critical in establishing diplomatic ties. As history progressed, First Ladies started playing a more active role in their husbands' administrations, with Hillary obviously taking center stage. And whether you believe her time as First Lady adds to her experience or not, you can't overlook how much of a role she and other First Ladies played parallel to the Presidency.

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:15 PM

Im with Kel on this....I might not support Hilllary....but as First Lady, being in the white house for 8 years, embroiled in washington society, networking, making contacts....that counts for a lot in dc....for you to dismiss that is plain retarded

Yes, I dismiss that as experience for being a President. Let's see where does the First Lady fall in line of duty for running the country if the President is unable? We all know the VP takes over? Well what if the VP can't? Oh let's see where she falls in line to run the country.

Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

Hmmm...........??? Don't see her listed.

The Senator

02-03-2008, 03:18 PM

Yes, I dismiss that as experience for being a President. Let's see where does the First Lady fall in line of duty for running the country if the President is unable? We all know the VP takes over? Well what if the VP can't? Oh let's see where she falls in line to run the country.

Speaker of the House
President Pro Tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security

Hmmm...........??? Don't see her listed.

Where does the Junior Senator from Illinois rank?

Oh, wait... he's not on there, either.

Moot point, duly noted.

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 03:18 PM

Im not saying she can be President or if she is capable....but her time as first lady gives her an edge .....not a large one....but still she has seen how the job is done from the inside.....no other candidate can say that

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:23 PM

Where does the Junior Senator from Illinois rank?

Oh, wait... he's not on there, either.

Moot point, duly noted.

Yes that actually is a moot point. If you read my earlier post I made the point clear already that it is not a question of Obama having more experience. The point was Hillary overstating her experience. Making this out to be a case of her experience vs his is silly. As in her experience is not so much more to overshadow his.

I thought I made that quite clear.

Kel

02-03-2008, 03:23 PM

The Senator

02-03-2008, 03:28 PM

Yes that actually is a moot point. If you read my earlier post I made the point clear already that it is not a question of Obama having more experience. The point was Hillary overstating her experience. Making this out to be a case of her experience vs his is silly. As in her experience is not so much more to overshadow his.

I thought I made that quite clear.

I responded to your decision to list the Line of Succession to the Preisdency. Listing the line of succession to the Presidency is a moot point in Presidential politics, unless the cabinet was infected with the Ebola virus recently and isn't expected to make it past Wednesday. But in the context of your argument, it made no sense whatsoever.

There are hundreds of officials in the White House who aren't considered in line for the Presidency, in addition to the 535 members of Congress and the fifty governors. You tried making a point-- that since the First Lady isn't in line for the Presidency, she must not have a huge role, and it must not give her some sort of experience. Unfortunately, you didn't make the cut.

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:28 PM

Did I say that's all she did? No. I just said even if all you have is her as an example for First Lady with experience (you had to go back to like the 1800's LOL @ U) That is still not enough to suggest that First Lady experience equates to reason for that person to be President. Again I believe Hillary overstates her experience against Obama. That was the point if you remember teacher.

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 03:29 PM

its not like either of them are getting elected.....we are basically debating 2nd and 3rd place here

Kel

02-03-2008, 03:30 PM

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:31 PM

I responded to your decision to list the Line of Succession to the Preisdency. Listing the line of succession to the Presidency is a moot point in Presidential politics, unless the cabinet was infected with the Ebola virus recently and isn't expected to make it past Wednesday. But in the context of your argument, it made no sense whatsoever.

There are hundreds of officials in the White House who aren't considered in line for the Presidency, in addition to the 535 members of Congress and the fifty governors. You tried making a point-- that since the First Lady isn't in line for the Presidency, she must not have a huge role, and it must not give her some sort of experience. Unfortunately, you didn't make the cut.

I posted the succession in response to this:

"but as First Lady, being in the white house for 8 years, embroiled in washington society, networking, making contacts...."

In other words saying as First Lady her responsibilities did not stretch. Furthermore, such an experience does not count in why I would vote for someone as President.

The Senator

02-03-2008, 03:32 PM

Did I say that's all she did? No. I just said even if all you have is her as an example for First Lady with experience (you had to go back to like the 1800's LOL @ U)

Credibility alert: Woodrow Wilson was President from 1913-1921, and Edith Wilson was the unofficial acting President from 1919 to 1921, and FDR was President from 1933 until 1945.

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:33 PM

Um, Wilson and Roosevelt were both Presidents in the 20th century.....

Done with this debate, go read some more......:cwink:

I obviously meant 1900's :rolleyes:

\S/JcDc\S/

02-03-2008, 03:34 PM

FDR was born in 1882 yeah yeah lead us through world war II/ depression.

The Senator

02-03-2008, 03:35 PM

Furthermore, such an experience does not count in why I would vote for someone as President.

You should have said that in the first place, instead of going on some tirade as to how First Ladies aren't experienced, don't play any important role in their husbands' administration, etc.

The Senator

02-03-2008, 03:39 PM

I obviously meant 1900's :rolleyes:

You said you had to go all the way back to the 1800s... so if you meant 1900s... you would damage your credibility further, since, you know, FDR's Presidency was only 70 years ago.

Kel

02-03-2008, 03:48 PM

I obviously meant 1900's :rolleyes:

Yeah....

And the fact that we are sooooooooooooooooo far into the 21st Century....makes your argument that much stronger.......:cwink: Were you born in the 21st Century?

CrypticOne

02-03-2008, 04:15 PM

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 04:20 PM

HAHA! I don't think so. America will change for the good. And electing a black or female candidate will put us on the right track. It'll happen. I'm personally rooting for Obama to take it.

Thats hilarious....I dont know if you havent been paying attention but tolerance is hardly Americas strong suit....just a few years ago in Tyler, texas a black man was tied to a truck and dragged till his head came off. In Wyoming, Matthew Sheppard, a gay man was beaten, tied to a fence post, and left for dead in the middle of the winter. Domestic abuse is a huge issue that is basically ignored in this country. Too many americans still hate women and n*****s (sorry for the spew but its the truth) and this is coming from a black man

Kel

02-03-2008, 04:25 PM

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 04:28 PM

Actually it was Jasper, Texas, but point taken.....

my apologies then....but I hope people get the point....This country is not as advanced or civil as we would all like to think

Kel

02-03-2008, 04:30 PM

my apologies then....but I hope people get the point....This country is not as advanced or civil as we would all like to think

I agree, but in comparison to a good 80% of the countries around the world.....we are far and away ahead......and equal with most of the other 20%......

I will never say we are where we should be, but we are a hell of a ways ahead of most, and we have come a long, with a long way to go...

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 04:32 PM

Long way.....but we might get there.....one day

Kel

02-03-2008, 04:33 PM

Long way.....but we might get there.....one day

I think we will.......and I'm damn sure doing my best in my classroom to make that happen.........at least in my little world...:cwink:

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 04:35 PM

I see small changes....especially among younger people simply because we are finally melding...slowly..... as a society across race and culture....after so long of separating ourselves

Kel

02-03-2008, 04:38 PM

Yeah, but see.....I don't want us to "melt together"....I fight against the "melting pot" stereotype......

Yes, I want my students to be proud Americans...
Yes, I want them to understand other groups of people...
But, I want them to be proud of their differences, and respectful of other's differences......

Canada is known as a "mosaic culture".....I would like that to happen in the U.S. as well......

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 04:40 PM

^^^better said, thats what I meant.....I think some people feel that being involved in american culture means they have to give up their own culture and thats not the case at all

MarkJK1441

02-03-2008, 04:46 PM

Kel

02-03-2008, 04:47 PM

Wow....

BlackLantern

02-03-2008, 04:49 PM

but being a student means you are in a liberal environment......so I highly doubt the opinions of your dorm building and that girl you shagged after last nights keggger constitute as the 'mindset of the USA'

Venom'sDad

02-03-2008, 05:27 PM

tolerance is hardly Americas strong suit....just a few years ago in Tyler, texas a black man was tied to a truck and dragged till his head came off. In Wyoming, Matthew Sheppard, a gay man was beaten, tied to a fence post, and left for dead in the middle of the winter. Domestic abuse is a huge issue that is basically ignored in this country. Too many americans still hate women and n*****s (sorry for the spew but its the truth) and this is coming from a black man

but I hope people get the point....This country is not as advanced or civil as we would all like to think

BL I agree and understand completely, but please don't take this personal or offensive, IMHO, African Americans, at some point has to start taking responsibility for their own actions. AA youth are very self-destructive, disrespectful of even their own, and appear to care nothing about advancing themselves or their race & culture. I know I'm generalizing, I feel that most of todays youth, particular AA youths, care very little about those things I've mention.

I understand the history and lack of relationship with White America. I understand the ideology of the "William Lynch Letter". But for AA to equal the Economic gap, they can't depend on government to equalize the playing field. AA of all ages must do a better job to stop this self-destructive, dependent attitude that do exist in AA communities.

AA are certainly not the only culture, I'm pointing them out because I feel they are in the worst condition. Please again, I hope you are not offended by my comment, that is not my intent... just my honest observation.

Superman

02-03-2008, 05:34 PM

its not like either of them are getting elected.....we are basically debating 2nd and 3rd place here:lmao:

The Senator

02-03-2008, 06:17 PM

BL I agree and understand completely, but please don't take this personal or offensive, IMHO, African Americans, at some point has to start taking responsibility for their own actions. AA youth are very self-destructive, disrespectful of even their own, and appear to care nothing about advancing themselves or their race & culture. I know I'm generalizing, I feel that most of todays youth, particular AA youths, care very little about those things I've mention.

I understand the history and lack of relationship with White America. I understand the ideology of the "William Lynch Letter". But for AA to equal the Economic gap, they can't depend on government to equalize the playing field. AA of all ages must do a better job to stop this self-destructive, dependent attitude that do exist in AA communities.

AA are certainly not the only culture, I'm pointing them out because I feel they are in the worst condition. Please again, I hope you are not offended by my comment, that is not my intent... just my honest observation.

But regardless of whether African Americans start to "take responsibility" for their own actions, they will still have to put up with the bigotry we've seen in places like Jena, LA, where African Americans are treated like crap for no reason other than their skin color. Every single African American could end up like Donald Trump, and there would still be bigots out there who spew the n-word and hang nooses from trees. It's despicable, and has absolutely nothing to do with how African Americans present themselves or their culture.

Lightning Strykez!

02-04-2008, 02:00 AM

:lmao:

LOL

Yeah, his comment amused me as well. ;)

Damiean Dark

02-04-2008, 10:32 AM

I'm not counting First Lady as experience... Sorry. Not applicable. I'm counting how long she has been a senator and how long Obama has been a senator. Thus the argument about "experience" vs "change" is silly. Counting first lady experience is laughable.

I think first lady experiance is a valid claim she isnt a smiling automoton like laura Bush appears to be (no offence to mrs bush she seems a nice lady) she seems someone who would know everything Bil Clinton i get the feeling they are the kind of couple who would discuss all issues Bill has to come across every day.

Captain Planet!

02-04-2008, 11:15 AM

Gamma Ray

02-04-2008, 01:00 PM

One thing McCain has going for him is his background as a CTU agent.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8301/241xm9.jpg

ShadowBoxing

02-04-2008, 01:12 PM

Genesis 1.0

02-04-2008, 01:57 PM

I wouldn't be so sure. McCain strikes me as slightly insane, hot tempered, and worst of all he gets very campaign weary. He's a lot like John Kerry in so far as he folds under pressure. In South Carolina all they had to do was ridiculously paint him the Manchurian Candidate and he got all frusterated back in 2000. While I sympathize with him having a much more "bigger man" approach to campaigning, he doesn't seem to understand not everyone is on the straight talk express like he is.

The other thing you have to understand is swing voters and indie's don't like Republicans right now, and conservations are none to fond of McCain. Unless the Democrats give Republicans a reason to vote against them, it's the Democrats race to lose, not the Republicans race to win.

I can't say that's fully correct, the last Poll I saw in the Washington Post back in October had 43% of Independents blaming Republicans for the way things have gone. That's not even half, so throwing out a generalization about all 'Indies' not liking Republicans is misleading, although I'm sure it was unintentional.

On the flip side, 23% blame Democrats, which harkens back to what Nancy Pelosi said, "When things don't get done in Congresss, they don't blame the Republicans, they blame us." Now she was speaking concerning the general public, but it seems that's also a measure of the Independents as well.

1 in 3 blame both sides for what's gone wrong. So McCain's not so bad off, and some seeing him as Bush 2.0 isn't so bad either seeing that Bush still has a 70% approval rating among Republicans.

What it all boils down to is that both parties are going to have to work in order to secure the Independent vote, nothing can be taken for granted.

Venom'sDad

02-04-2008, 02:28 PM

McCain no chance of becoming President, that is why the liberal media is propping McCain up. His winning the Rep nomination ensures a Dem in the White House.... which exactly what the liberal media desires.

Indies are not happy with the Rep and if Obama was to win the nomination, the Dems will win in a landslide.... McCain would essentially have no Base, against Obama.

Shadow Boxing is right about the Indies.

ShadowBoxing

02-04-2008, 03:27 PM

I'm starting to understand Obama's appeal more and more, even though I support Clinton currently. He's relatively young, very folksy, people can relate to him and finally he looks like change.

People want change right now, and people generally vote via cues. "Cues" are basically things in politics that are of little or no consequence that drive decision making in most voters. I picked Clinton because I think, ultimately, she'll make the best President, and my reasoning is sound I believe. That's not how most vote though. Most will vote based on a gut instinct, and looking at Obama he inspires the same type of confidence that people like Robert Kennedy do. Sure, maybe he's not the most qualified, but he looks nice and sounds idealistic; people like that.

Yurka

02-04-2008, 03:41 PM

ShadowBoxing

02-04-2008, 03:49 PM

Thats hilarious....I dont know if you havent been paying attention but tolerance is hardly Americas strong suit....just a few years ago in Tyler, texas a black man was tied to a truck and dragged till his head came off. In Wyoming, Matthew Sheppard, a gay man was beaten, tied to a fence post, and left for dead in the middle of the winter. Domestic abuse is a huge issue that is basically ignored in this country. Too many americans still hate women and n*****s (sorry for the spew but its the truth) and this is coming from a black man
Ya know, I heard this exact same argument last year when I was told "Obama wouldn't make it into the top three" and that he got "all the votes he would ever get the day he announced". If the country were as racist as you make it sound, or rather, if that racism was going to make a difference in this election, Obama wouldn't be in basically first place (depending on where you see Hillary), and this race wouldn't be between a black man and a white woman. The Democrats, because of these two viable candidates have had record turnout, in fact in some states the frontrunners have gotten almost as much voters as the entire Republican primary.

Zen

02-04-2008, 04:00 PM

Fine. You're still wrong, then, because Clinton has seven years experience vs. three years.

Also, look at her voting record, and compare it to his. It's like comparing a Whopper to a chicken nugget.

Im with Kel on this....I might not support Hilllary....but as First Lady, being in the white house for 8 years, embroiled in washington society, networking, making contacts....that counts for a lot in dc....for you to dismiss that is plain retarded

it gives her an insight on the process though.....insight that the other candidates dont have

We can argue, ad nauseum, about whose experience is more impressive. Basically we are comparing apples and oranges.

But Jmanspice is right lets look at the JUDGEMENT between these two... lets check the voting record,

in 2002 Obama had this to say about his vote on Iraq...

” I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

Hillary currently had this position about her vote about the war...

” If I knew than what I knew now, I would not have voted for the war.

Whatever experience Obama had, it resulted in more meaningful knowledge and judgement than Hillary had when it came time to make the decision about invading Iraq.

Thats hilarious....I dont know if you havent been paying attention but tolerance is hardly Americas strong suit....just a few years ago in Tyler, texas a black man was tied to a truck and dragged till his head came off. In Wyoming, Matthew Sheppard, a gay man was beaten, tied to a fence post, and left for dead in the middle of the winter. Domestic abuse is a huge issue that is basically ignored in this country. Too many americans still hate women and n*****s (sorry for the spew but its the truth) and this is coming from a black man

if you think Obama and Hillary do not stand a chance to win this... then i arguably surmise you and others are out of touch with the pulse of america. i do not doubt that there is alot of latent racism and mysogeny in the system... but i really believe either of these candidates stand a great chance of getting elected.

ShadowBoxing

02-04-2008, 04:03 PM

if you think Obama and Hillary do not stand a chance to win this... then i arguably surmise you and others are out of touch with the pulse of america. i do not doubt that there is alot of latent racism and mysogeny in the system... but i really believe either of these candidates stand a great chance of getting elected.Damn straight. You can argue how racist and mysogenistic America is all damn day, but it was that racist and mysogenistic country that voted every white male out of a primary election.

Malice

02-04-2008, 04:07 PM

This is really a tough one...
All the candidates have goods and bads that heavilly weigh on them one way or another.

Honestly, I think McCain will get the nomination, but I would prefer Romney, and I dont care for either Obama or Clinton, but I would rather have McCain then both of them.

McCain does worry me at times too.

Zen

02-04-2008, 04:13 PM

Malice

02-04-2008, 04:20 PM

do you think Huckabee is sinking Romney?

I truthfully think Huckabee will bail after Tuesday, but yes I think he is taking a few of the votes Romney would be getting.

I think he is going to push McCain into the nomination.

If Nader runs in the general election, he may do a little damage to the Democratic nominee and if its that close of a race, that may push the Repulican nominee to the victory...
Those are just the things I forsee...nothing about my likes or dislikes there...just my prognostication of what I see.

Zen

02-04-2008, 04:25 PM

is Nader talking about coming back? how did i miss that....

that could be extremely interesting in the general election, i wonder if hes running as independant cause the green party already has a candidate. i wonder how many folks he'll wrangle into the booths this time.

ShadowBoxing

02-04-2008, 04:26 PM

Nader is talking about running again. I hope he gets a massive heart attack between now and then.

Superman

02-04-2008, 04:40 PM

I truthfully think Huckabee will bail after Tuesday, but yes I think he is taking a few of the votes Romney would be getting.

I think he is going to push McCain into the nomination.

If Nader runs in the general election, he may do a little damage to the Democratic nominee and if its that close of a race, that may push the Repulican nominee to the victory...
Those are just the things I forsee...nothing about my likes or dislikes there...just my prognostication of what I see.I can see that.

Superman

02-04-2008, 04:49 PM

Nader is talking about running again. I hope he gets a massive heart attack between now and then.Well, I don't want the man to die but I do wish he'd get a clue and stay the hell out of the race.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

If Nader really cared about the US he would be out there fighting for us all the time, Not just every 4 years when the presidential elections come up. You never hear from the man till the elections then he's all "I'm fighting for America".:whatever:

Bull****! His running has nothing to do with America, It's all about his ego.:cmad:

Venom'sDad

02-04-2008, 04:50 PM

We can argue, ad nauseum, about whose experience is more impressive. Basically we are comparing apples and oranges.

But Jmanspice is right lets look at the JUDGEMENT between these two... lets check the voting record,

in 2002 Obama had this to say about his vote on Iraq...

” I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

Hillary currently had this position about her vote about the war...

” If I knew than what I knew now, I would not have voted for the war.

Whatever experience Obama had, it resulted in more meaningful knowledge and judgement than Hillary had when it came time to make the decision about invading Iraq.

Very good observation Zen, Thank you for pointing that out, I had completely forgotten about that. :up:

This is really a tough one...
All the candidates have goods and bads that heavilly weigh on them one way or another.

Honestly, I think McCain will get the nomination, but I would prefer Romney, and I dont care for either Obama or Clinton, but I would rather have McCain then both of them.

McCain does worry me at times too.

Malice, I completely understand your dilemma. Believe it or not, when you get pass my attempt to shed some light between Obama and hillary, the media influencing public opinion, and the fact I know the real power is in the House & Senate; I wrestle with the candidates + & -, and their core principles and beliefs system. None of these candidates speak to what I'm concern about, except for a candidate that obviously has no chance. It is very tough, because my vote is now limited to who I don't want in office... and that is not a reason to vote.

I understand your feeling about Romney & McCain, and yes it is a tough one you have.

Superman

02-04-2008, 04:59 PM

Chris B

02-04-2008, 05:28 PM

The other thing you have to understand is swing voters and indie's don't like Republicans right now, and conservations are none to fond of McCain. Unless the Democrats give Republicans a reason to vote against them, it's the Democrats race to lose, not the Republicans race to win.

I have to disagree with you to some extent. If the alternative is President Hillary Clinton, I think most conservatives will forget their issues with McCain and fall in line behind him. Plus, at the moment, it seems as though McCain appeals more to independents than Hillary because they still perceive him as being a moderate Republican with a maverick streak.

Now once the general election is underway and she begins poking holes into that perception that may change, but I do think that with John McCain, the Republicans chances of retaining the White House do increase a bit.

Chris B

02-04-2008, 05:31 PM

One more thing about Nader. Don't you guys find it funny that Nader started talking about running again around the same time that his new book came out. I'm sure that him hinting around about running has sold alot of books and if he actually ran that would sell alot more.:whatever:

I think it has more to do with the fact that the Democratic nominee is going to be either Hillary and Obama and he has stated that he has problems with them. He did say recently that he wouldn't run if John Edwards won the nomination (which obviously isn't going to happen now).

hippie_hunter

02-04-2008, 05:40 PM

The other thing you have to understand is swing voters and indie's don't like Republicans right now,
Actually indies don't like either party. About 70% of voters blame both parties for the government's ineffectiveness.

and conservations are none to fond of McCain. Unless the Democrats give Republicans a reason to vote against them, it's the Democrats race to lose, not the Republicans race to win.
Conservatives will line up to McCain if Hillary gets nominated. Ann Coulter aside, most conservatives hate Hillary more than McCain.

Venom'sDad

02-04-2008, 05:43 PM

They will not line up for McCain, they will simply abandon the election. He will be lucky to get 20% of the Consevative vote. This ensures a Dem in the WH.

Malice

02-04-2008, 06:07 PM

I gotta say this has been the most involved I have ever been in an election.
I am somewhat frightened by it.

ShadowBoxing

02-04-2008, 08:03 PM

Well, I don't want the man to die but I do wish he'd get a clue and stay the hell out of the race.

I didn't say "die", I just want him incapacitated for a while.

Havok83

02-04-2008, 08:06 PM

Oh I hope not. Im ready for Obama or Clinto to take over

The Senator

02-04-2008, 08:28 PM

We can argue, ad nauseum, about whose experience is more impressive. Basically we are comparing apples and oranges.

But Jmanspice is right lets look at the JUDGEMENT between these two... lets check the voting record,

in 2002 Obama had this to say about his vote on Iraq...

” I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

Hillary currently had this position about her vote about the war...

” If I knew than what I knew now, I would not have voted for the war.

Whatever experience Obama had, it resulted in more meaningful knowledge and judgement than Hillary had when it came time to make the decision about invading Iraq.

.

Two quick points:

1) Obama didn't vote on the Iraq resolution, since he wasn't in the U.S. Senate at the time.

2) He may have spoken out against the war in Iraq, but his voting record certainly refutes that. He voted for every major war-funding bill, and against most bills which required the President to set a date for withdrawal. In fact, he spoke out against the very first bill which would have required the withdrawal of all forces from Iraq, which was proposed by Senator Kerry in 2006.

Now, a lot of people are going to read this and say, "well, he couldn't vote against the war! It would make him look like he wasn't supporting the troops!" Well, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl, Dick Durbin and others voted against the war from the beginning, in addition to further funding. They're still around, and they're quite popular in their home states. Christ, Obama could have voted for anything, and he still would have had approval ratings in the low 70s.

My point is this: Everyone who says Clinton is calculating, they ought to look at Obama's voting record. Not only does it correspond with Clinton's almost 85% of the time on the major issues, such as defense spending and appropriations, but it looks like the voting record of a man planning a run for the Presidency. How many times did we hear this one in 2004: "I voted for [funding the war] before I voted against it?" Obama's quite the politician. The fact that he can brainwash everyone into thinking he's the anti-establishment candidate by regurgitating quotes he made when he was of very little prominence in the political world only re-emphasizes that point.

Arkady Rossovich

02-04-2008, 09:29 PM

BlackLantern

02-04-2008, 09:36 PM

if you think Obama and Hillary do not stand a chance to win this... then i arguably surmise you and others are out of touch with the pulse of america. i do not doubt that there is alot of latent racism and mysogeny in the system... but i really believe either of these candidates stand a great chance of getting elected.

Let me ask you a question....have you ever been ganged up on at the age of 10 and been called a "ni**er" while getting kicked like a dog? that still happens in this country.....WAKE UP

Malice

02-04-2008, 09:38 PM

I just want Hillary to Cry again, I am so moved by her

EdRyder

02-04-2008, 09:52 PM

Well, I don't want the man to die but I do wish he'd get a clue and stay the hell out of the race.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

If Nader really cared about the US he would be out there fighting for us all the time, Not just every 4 years when the presidential elections come up. You never hear from the man till the elections then he's all "I'm fighting for America".:whatever:

Bull****! His running has nothing to do with America, It's all about his ego.:cmad:

wow
Im going to refute that by simply stating that Nader has done more for this country from the private sector than all the candidates combined have in their respective offices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

The Senator

02-04-2008, 09:59 PM

wow
Im going to refute that by simply stating that Nader has done more for this country from the private sector than all the candidates combined have in their respective offices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

He invented the seat belt, so that makes him presidential material... right... so, where's President Eli Whitney, then?

EdRyder

02-04-2008, 10:00 PM

He invented the seat belt, so that makes him presidential material... right... so, where's President Eli Whitney, then?

You make it sound like that was easy.

The Senator

02-04-2008, 10:10 PM

You make it sound like that was easy.

The damn cotton gin was perhaps one of the most important industrial inventions ever, and he didn't make a big fuss about it. Ralph Nader, on the other hand, invents the seat belt and "fights against the establishment" for decades, and suddenly, he should be President?

Certainly, a lot of thank Mr. Nader for the seat belt and making global warming/ the environment such an important issue. But he ought to give it a rest. He's an unreasonable man, and his fringe candidacies just make him look more and more like a crackpot every four years or so.

EdRyder

02-04-2008, 10:21 PM

The damn cotton gin was perhaps one of the most important industrial inventions ever, and he didn't make a big fuss about it. Ralph Nader, on the other hand, invents the seat belt and "fights against the establishment" for decades, and suddenly, he should be President?

Certainly, a lot of thank Mr. Nader for the seat belt and making global warming/ the environment such an important issue. But he ought to give it a rest. He's an unreasonable man, and his fringe candidacies just make him look more and more like a crackpot every four years or so.

Once again you go to far.I give you credit , you do some of your best work while painting in the absurd..,
I didnt say because of all he did he should be President.I simply stated that the things hes done in his private life outweigh the accomplishments of the combined candidates.I just wanted to respond to the idea that a Presidential run was about his ego...,nonsense.The man served this country well through the private sector and he should be given his respect.

In 1971, Nader founded the non-governmental organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization) (NGO) Public Citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Citizen) as an umbrella organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_organization) for these projects. Today, Public Citizen has over 140,000 members and scores of researchers investigating Congressional, health, environmental, economic and other issues. Their work is credited with facilitating the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act) and Freedom of Information Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29) (FOIA), and prompting the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration) (OSHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Product_Safety_Commission) (CPSC).

...,and he invented the seat belt.
As well as forcing the auto industry to recognize several other safety regulations.

Zen

02-04-2008, 11:06 PM

Eli whitney tried to make the cotton gin a big deal but everyone ripped his idea because it was so simple you could make it yourself after having seen one work...

heres something interesting, you guys see this video? i know... i know... its a bit produced, but god damn it if it isnt hopefull and inspiring... these are the kinds of videos and ads that will bring in some young voters.

jjXyqcx-mYY&eurl

Lightning Strykez!

02-04-2008, 11:11 PM

I just want Hillary to Cry again, I am so moved by her

Stay tuned Malice. For all we know, she might be crying again tommorrow night--but for different reasons. :hehe:

Superman

02-05-2008, 01:21 AM

wow
Im going to refute that by simply stating that Nader has done more for this country from the private sector than all the candidates combined have in their respective offices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_NaderOh wow, He got the Corvair recalled over 30 years ago. Oh where do I sign up for the green party?:whatever:

Superman

02-05-2008, 01:29 AM

jjXyqcx-mYY&eurlAMEN!!!!

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 01:32 AM

Nader's heart is in the right place.......maybe he should try running for Congressman or something in his state? might win that

The Senator

02-05-2008, 01:33 AM

Nader's heart is in the right place.......maybe he should try running for Congressman or something in his state? might win that

He's too old, plus I think he hails from Pelosi's district.

BlackLantern

02-05-2008, 01:36 AM

Pelosi creeps me out.....she looks like a marionette

kronos251

02-05-2008, 06:06 AM

I just want Hillary to Cry again, I am so moved by her
eh thats what my four-year-old nephew does everytime he wants something for himself......... :woot:

Hillary should've shown a little bit more maturity as a presidentiable -
quiet inner strength, that sort of thing...

You know what kind of message she was sending to these guys??

http://itscool.com/images/OsamaBinLaden_blackwhite.jpg

http://www.labanlieuesexprime.org/IMG/jpg/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_et_Hugo_Chavez._2.jpg

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0702/kim_jong_il0213.jpg

..not good. :o

And I tell you, they ARE watching every single bit of this election, thanks to the 24/7 media outlets worldwide....

kronos251

02-05-2008, 06:07 AM

Pelosi creeps me out.....she looks like a marionette

and thinks like one too. :)

rdh007

02-05-2008, 07:51 AM

eh thats what my four-year-old nephew does everytime he wants something for himself......... :woot:

Hillary should've shown a little bit more maturity as a presidentiable -
quiet inner strength, that sort of thing...

You know what kind of message she was sending to these guys??

http://itscool.com/images/OsamaBinLaden_blackwhite.jpg

http://www.labanlieuesexprime.org/IMG/jpg/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_et_Hugo_Chavez._2.jpg

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0702/kim_jong_il0213.jpg

..not good. :o

And I tell you, they ARE watching every single bit of this election, thanks to the 24/7 media outlets worldwide....
Screw those guys. I couldn't care less what they think. The American people and the American military will take care of them anyway. We could elect that emo-kid that was crying for Britney Spears and we'd still be win.

kronos251

02-05-2008, 09:06 AM

Screw those guys. I couldn't care less what they think. The American people and the American military will take care of them anyway. We could elect that emo-kid that was crying for Britney Spears and we'd still be win.
It is the austerity of the hardline political will-power that is needed to counter these "...guys", which must be vested by the president as being duty-bound for the demanding role of the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. We are subject to history -and whether we like it or not, "controversy" - and what will judge of us and our actions, and these nihilist radicals will be smiling at us if we failed, to the point if they were able to decapitate the United States.

Emo kid - ? What the hell. Crying is out of place, and out of the question, especially during an election held at a critical juncture of our time.

Gamma Ray

02-05-2008, 12:27 PM

This day is so exciting!!!!

Superman

02-05-2008, 03:46 PM

I just want Hillary to Cry again, I am so moved by herLOL didn't she cry last night?

\S/JcDc\S/

02-05-2008, 07:45 PM

LOL didn't she cry last night?

Only if she knew women were watching. Ah the strength of her campaign.

Memphis Slim

02-05-2008, 11:55 PM

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.primary/art.mccain.fl.win.afp.gi.jpg[/URL]
Cousins?

It's all but guaranteed at this point. The US will never elect a female or black candidate. That's the [perhaps] unfortunate truth about this country. Anyway, I really want to make this thread so that I can bump it and say "I told you so" by the end of the year.
[URL="http://forums.superherohype.com/member.php?u=20277"]http://forums.superherohype.com/image.php?u=20277&dateline=1200008883 (http://forums.superherohype.com/member.php?u=20277)http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.primary/art.mccain.fl.win.afp.gi.jpg
Similiarities?

The Senator

02-05-2008, 11:59 PM

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060524/060524_cheney_vsmall8p.widec.jpghttp://rightsfield.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/john-mccain2.jpg

Lightning Strykez!

02-06-2008, 12:03 AM

Holy ****. That's positively scary. ^

LOL didn't she cry last night?

Her daughter Chelsea was crying today. In fact they shared an EMO moment...together. On TV. So touching. :rolleyes:

bell110

02-06-2008, 04:46 AM

It is the austerity of the hardline political will-power that is needed to counter these "...guys", which must be vested by the president as being duty-bound for the demanding role of the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. We are subject to history -and whether we like it or not, "controversy" - and what will judge of us and our actions, and these nihilist radicals will be smiling at us if we failed, to the point if they were able to decapitate the United States.

Emo kid - ? What the hell. Crying is out of place, and out of the question, especially during an election held at a critical juncture of our time.

What is failing? And how are they going to "decapitate" us?

kronos251

02-06-2008, 08:25 AM

What is failing?

Failing is when absconding the critical action to see fit the end of and/or having little or no knowledge of proper implementation of military and reconstruction strategies on the ground, as what happened miserably in the Bay of Pigs invasion, Vietnam, Somalia, et al. A "success" constitutes of a transition - painfully arduous, yes; long-term subsistence, most feasibly - from foe to friend, as history shows of the fervid post-war controversy over the transitions of Nazi Germany, Japan Imperialists, and fairly recently, the Soviet Union.

A failing also comprises of an ignorance of debilitating economic factors, stimulated by interest rates, flow of trade, consumer costs etc. And natural resources, historically significant such as oil, as OPEC is responsible of the cost and, whether or not the stability or volatility of the global market. For example,the deciding factor of why there was a decline in the global economy during the eighties was of the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988). Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khumeini were holding the oil hostage against the world; and practically everybody, in nearly every country, be it communist or not, were suffering because of this type of strangulation.

So this can also be said a decade earlier, during the Israel-Palestinian War (1971-1972), which initiated the oil crisis of the seventies, and the depression of the United States and the world.

As you can see, stable democracies encourage local businesses and global fair trade investments and open exchanges. An Open Door policy, with its transparency, reduces the occurences of human rights abuses and secures the nation's people and their future, as regards to their way of life: education; family concerns; community service; and most importantly their peace of mind. Without the stability of a continent such as the Middle East, and later on Africa, there will be no end as to what kind of world we are living in and passing on to future generations.

And how are they going to "decapitate" us?

By their own actions and our negligence. Which can be solved by diplomacy or warfare and/or both.

bell110

02-06-2008, 02:51 PM

Failing is when absconding the critical action to see fit the end of and/or having little or no knowledge of proper implementation of military and reconstruction strategies on the ground, as what happened miserably in the Bay of Pigs invasion, Vietnam, Somalia, et al. A "success" constitutes of a transition - painfully arduous, yes; long-term subsistence, most feasibly - from foe to friend, as history shows of the fervid post-war controversy over the transitions of Nazi Germany, Japan Imperialists, and fairly recently, the Soviet Union.

A failing also comprises of an ignorance of debilitating economic factors, stimulated by interest rates, flow of trade, consumer costs etc. And natural resources, historically significant such as oil, as OPEC is responsible of the cost and, whether or not the stability or volatility of the global market. For example,the deciding factor of why there was a decline in the global economy during the eighties was of the Iraq-Iran War (1981-1982). Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khumeini were holding the oil hostage against the world; and practically everybody, in nearly every country, be it communist or not, were suffering because of this type of strangulation.

So this can also be said a decade earlier, during the Israel-Palestinian War (1971-1972), which initiated the oil crisis of the seventies, and the depression of the United States and the world.

As you can see, stable democracies encourage local businesses and global fair trade investments and open exchanges. An Open Door policy, with its transparency, reduces the occurences of human rights abuses and secures the nation's people and their future, as regards to their way of life: education; family concerns; community service; and most importantly their peace of mind. Without the stability of a continent such as the Middle East, and later on Africa, there will be no end as to what kind of world we are living in and passing on to future generations.

By their own actions and our negligence. Which can be solved by diplomacy or warfare and/or both.

So, by those standards, Bush has created a situation of complete failure. And saying "decapitate", it makes it sound like you are saying they could deliver a death blow to America, basically making America no more. Those guys will never be able to take us down.

BlackLantern

02-06-2008, 09:38 PM

So, by those standards, Bush has created a situation of complete failure. And saying "decapitate", it makes it sound like you are saying they could deliver a death blow to America, basically making America no more. Those guys will never be able to take us down.

its that type of thinking that has put us in this position in Iraq and afghanistan....we need to start thinking differently...entertain the possibility that we are not INVINCIBLE.....

\S/JcDc\S/

02-06-2008, 10:18 PM

Republican vote is falling apart so even if Mccain gets the nom I don't think it is a lock that America will vote him in due to not wanting someone of a mixed race, or a female for President.

BlackLantern

02-06-2008, 10:22 PM

Republican vote is falling apart so even if Mccain gets the nom I don't think it is a lock that America will vote him in due to not wanting someone of a mixed race, or a female for President.

Thats exactly why McCain will probably win. Most of America would rather have more of the same than elect one of "those people" into office....because thats how Obama is viewed by a lot of America.

\S/JcDc\S/

02-06-2008, 10:32 PM

Well... I voted Obama anyways *runs*

kronos251

02-06-2008, 11:09 PM

So, by those standards, Bush has created a situation of complete failure.
No. The Bush Administration may have been right in the succeeding years of the "Shock and Awe" military strategy (2003-2004), but the follow-up reconstruction, and secuirty maintenance of Iraq (late 2004-2006) had been erratic and was in dire need of command and management on the ground. Until recently (2007-2008), the key appointment of Gen David Petraeus has delivered significant results as to the reduction of car bombings, in which the source was -and still is- the continuous flow of arms supply from the borders of Iran and Syria (Hezbollah), and the global AlQaeda network.

Petraeus' reconstruction strategy in Iraq can be compared to the Marshall Plan years of the accomplishment and due process initiated and implemented by Gen Douglas MacArthur in the Pacific Theater, more than 60 years ago, wherein the generals and all ranks of officers do not simply sit on their hands and watch a fledgling government tend for itself, but the necessity for long-term reinforcement of peace and security and rooting out all or majority of inward and outward sources of insurgency and radicalism, at the same time lending a patient ear and hand to the Iraqi community, encourages open communication, open businesses, an open way of living, which will eventually lead to peace.

Problems may hinder from time to time, however, a peaceful developing nation is always worth its price.

And saying "decapitate", it makes it sound like you are saying they could deliver a death blow to America, basically making America no more. Those guys will never be able to take us down.I hated to post this earlier, for I didn't want to use this. But it is, unfortunately, the painful Truth.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ladyejane/911-9-flag.JPG

I think we do not need to see a picture of the Pentagon burning, or another plane that crash-landed in Pennsylvania which was clearly heading to our nation's capital, or the anthrax-laden postal mail and audio/videotapes which were sent to numerous key officials and the newsmedia.

Not to mention that even way before 9/11, there was a bombing incident in the parking garage of the World Trade Center (1993), a joint FBI-NBI sting operation in Manila, Philippines (1995) which exposed the Abu-Sayyaf movement in Mindanao and its crucial links to Al-Qaeda, plans to make an assasination attempt on the Pope on World Youth Day, and a second major attempt on the WTC. Another 5 years later, the attack of the USS Cole (2000) in Yemen, that succeeded after an interview with Osama bin Laden, which was not taken seriously.

And one fact that cannot be removed is that after the death of Iran's earliest preachers of 20th century jihad revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khumeini (1989), Saddam Hussein, one-time US ally, had decided to invade Kuwait (1991). After its lack of success, Saddam escaped and remained ambivalent on his plans regarding Iraq and its people, and the Middle East.

its that type of thinking that has put us in this position in Iraq and afghanistan....we need to start thinking differently...entertain the possibility that we are not INVINCIBLE.....
Exactly. We are not weak, but we are not also invincible.
Honesty, humility, magnanimity, constant maintenance and implementation, and long-term planning are what makes it work.

kronos251

02-06-2008, 11:12 PM

Well... I voted Obama anyways *runs*

:-/

You have your opinion.......... and you don't have to run away.......:)

LuiECuomo

02-07-2008, 12:19 AM

Thats exactly why McCain will probably win. Most of America would rather have more of the same than elect one of "those people" into office....because thats how Obama is viewed by a lot of America.

...Or it's the fact that they don't want to vote for someone who runs solely on the empty, meaningless platforms of "change" and "unity."

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 12:22 AM

...Or it's the fact that they don't want to vote for someone who runs solely on the empty, meaningless platforms of "change" and "unity."

or that...

bell110

02-07-2008, 04:53 AM

its that type of thinking that has put us in this position in Iraq and afghanistan....we need to start thinking differently...entertain the possibility that we are not INVINCIBLE.....

Bad leadership, and a feeling of omnipotence put us in those positions. We may not be invinceible, but Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela are not going to be the ones that destroy us.

No. The Bush Administration may have been right in the succeeding years of the "Shock and Awe" military strategy (2003-2004), but the follow-up reconstruction, and secuirty maintenance of Iraq (late 2004-2006) had been erratic and was in dire need of command and management on the ground. Until recently (2007-2008), the key appointment of Gen David Petraeus has delivered significant results as to the reduction of car bombings, in which the source was -and still is- the continuous flow of arms supply from the borders of Iran and Syria (Hezbollah), and the global AlQaeda network.

It's nice that Petraeus has reduced car bombs, but too little too late. Fact is, we should not be in Iraq. We wouldn't have to reduce car bombs if we didn't start **** there. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Petraeus' reconstruction strategy in Iraq can be compared to the Marshall Plan years of the accomplishment and due process initiated and implemented by Gen Douglas MacArthur in the Pacific Theater, more than 60 years ago, wherein the generals and all ranks of officers do not simply sit on their hands and watch a fledgling government tend for itself, but the necessity for long-term reinforcement of peace and security and rooting out all or majority of inward and outward sources of insurgency and radicalism, at the same time lending a patient ear and hand to the Iraqi community, encourages open communication, open businesses, an open way of living, which will eventually lead to peace.

Did the Marshall plan include the US illegally invading a sovereign nation, distroying it's infrastructure, and killing hundred of thousands of innocent people?

Problems may hinder from time to time, however, a peaceful developing nation is always worth its price.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families displaced and killed, and the thousands of US families who have had a loved one killed or severally injured in an unjust war.

I hated to post this earlier, for I didn't want to use this. But it is, unfortunately, the painful Truth.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ladyejane/911-9-flag.JPG

I think we do not need to see a picture of the Pentagon burning, or another plane that crash-landed in Pennsylvania which was clearly heading to our nation's capital, or the anthrax-laden postal mail and audio/videotapes which were sent to numerous key officials and the newsmedia.

Not to mention that even way before 9/11, there was a bombing incident in the parking garage of the World Trade Center (1993), a joint FBI-NBI sting operation in Manila, Philippines (1995) which exposed the Abu-Sayyaf movement in Mindanao and its crucial links to Al-Qaeda, plans to make an assasination attempt on the Pope on World Youth Day, and a second major attempt on the WTC. Another 5 years later, the attack of the USS Cole (2000) in Yemen, that succeeded after an interview with Osama bin Laden, which was not taken seriously.

And one fact that cannot be removed is that after the death of Iran's earliest preachers of 20th century jihad revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khumeini (1989), Saddam Hussein, one-time US ally, had decided to invade Kuwait (1991). After its lack of success, Saddam escaped and remained ambivalent on his plans regarding Iraq and its people, and the Middle East.

A. Posting a pic of the WTC is a fear tactic. It doesn't work on me, and I hope it doesn't work on most people.

B. All those examples you gave, while bad, doesn't show the big picture. Much worst things happen from our own people than from foreigners. If you really want to protect us, why don't we arrest every American who do anything that might lead someone to rape and murder? Censor all violent music, movies, and video games. Statistically, you're more likely to be murdered by an American than by a terrorist.

Exactly. We are not weak, but we are not also invincible.
Honesty, humility, magnanimity, constant maintenance and implementation, and long-term planning are what makes it work.

Yes, wake me up when the government starts acting honest, humble, and magnanimous.

kronos251

02-07-2008, 10:17 AM

Bad leadership, and a feeling of omnipotence put us in those positions. We may not be invinceible, but Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela are not going to be the ones that destroy us.

Read again on my post earlier regarding Ayatollah Khumeini and the Islamist jihad revolution of the 1970's and the war between Iraq and Iran (1980-1988). His preachings pervaded even the most secular of governments in the Middle East, including Afghanistan that was under Soviet stronghold at the time. And a decade before, the Six Day War (1967 - Israel vs Egypt, Jordan and Syria) and the Israel-Palestinian War (1971-1972). These wars all have to do with oil and natural resources, which universally was and still is the prominent energy source of the global economy. Once the price of oil shoots up, everything shoots up - food prices, consumer costs, real estate, etc resulting to unemployment, and later inflation, and then recession. Hence the high discontentment in the US and all over the world from late 1960's to the entire decade of the 1980's.

Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, and other communist countries from all regions which were remnants of the Cold War still thrive with their ballistic missile programs and nuclear warheads, and most of all, they and their people thrive on the communist philosophy.

Communism is reached through poor socio-economic divisions, wherein the Lenin and Marx philosophy counts heavily on the lack of faith in a democratic government. To hand down all rights, possessions of the people (bourgeoisie) to one elitist group, is the goal, so as to free men of any responsibility; to free men of any cause of war, in order to have peace. That is the communist goal. It is good on paper, yet not applicable in real life. Democracy encourages open trade policy: "You keep what you earn; Reap what you sow; A good day ends with a hard day's work."

Security of a country is the foundation of a sound democracy.

It's nice that Petraeus has reduced car bombs, but too little too late. Fact is, we should not be in Iraq. We wouldn't have to reduce car bombs if we didn't start **** there. You're putting the cart before the horse.Again, read the post earlier in regards to Khumeini and Saddam's ambivalence and also the documentation of hundreds and thousands of mass gravesites still being found in Iraq.

Did the Marshall plan include the US illegally invading a sovereign nation, distroying it's infrastructure, and killing hundred of thousands of innocent people?Truman's controversial order of the atomic bomb twice on Japan, in retaliation of Pearl Harbor, destroyed not only Japan's infrastracture, but also its people due to the radiation fallout. The Marshall Plan had achieved the reconstruction needed, from ground level up to the high ranks of the emperor, and 60 years on, Japan has turned foe to ally, and is the leading economy in Asia, the second in the world. Alright, what about Nazi Germany? Germany didn't invade us, so why invade them...? You see what I mean..

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families displaced and killed, and the thousands of US families who have had a loved one killed or severally injured in an unjust war.

bell110,

I am part of those thousands of US families who have their family members currently serving in the Battles for Iraq and Afghanistan and also in Mindanao, Philippines.

So I tell that to myself and to my family and to other families (America, Iraqi, et al) who have made the ultimate sacrifice. My cousin had risked his life and limb in Iraq back in 2003, and we prayed everyday - and still do - for the success of their mission, and the success of the implementation of that mission, no matter how hard or how long it took.

We happen to believe in this "unjust war" Washington politicians love to coin, in fact to the point of dying for what we believe in. Gen Petraeus has delivered remarkable results, and we are happy not only for the American people in our homeland, but more so for the Iraqi, Afghan, and Filipino people. However, much work still has to be done, and yes, a very long way to go, but it's getting there.

A. Posting a pic of the WTC is a fear tactic. It doesn't work on me, and I hope it doesn't work on most people.

B. All those examples you gave, while bad, doesn't show the big picture. Much worst things happen from our own people than from foreigners. If you really want to protect us, why don't we arrest every American who do anything that might lead someone to rape and murder? Censor all violent music, movies, and video games. Statistically, you're more likely to be murdered by an American than by a terrorist.
.
A. :-/ :huh: :csad:

B. All the examples I gave are not really from me, but from recent history, and personal experiences in the Philippines. It would be helpful if you read up on history, and then - only then - you won't sound so cynical to the point you sound biased.

And I did not mention anything about censorship of consumer products.

Yes, wake me up when the government starts acting honest, humble, and magnanimous.There is no need to be sarcastic. There are far worse governments in other third world countries, who don't give a damn about things like social security and don't have a translation for the word, "insurance". People would actually gape at the sight of the sanitation and order of asphalt on the streets, and the sight of abundant food and clothing. No cause of famine, or severe threat of natural diseases.

You are right that our democratic government may not be perfect, and should be answerable for its bureaucracies and corruption, but it's the only one we have, and many do aspire to.

.

Darkly Dexter

02-07-2008, 04:42 PM

Bad leadership, and a feeling of omnipotence put us in those positions. We may not be invinceible, but Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela are not going to be the ones that destroy us.

China and Russia, those are the ones that can destroy you (and I'm talking about the future, not now). Certainly not Venezuela, Korea or Iran.

The War Machine

02-07-2008, 05:09 PM

kronos251

02-08-2008, 03:21 AM

China and Russia, those are the ones that can destroy you (and I'm talking about the future, not now). Certainly not Venezuela, Korea or Iran.
In the respective line of thought of Mao-Tse Tung and Lenin/Marx, China and Russia, yes, very much so. Although they still have communist governments and/or elements of such, they will be lethal competitors in terms of economy and trade industries due to the magnitude of their cheap labor alone. Plus the irrefutable fact that they are not - to put it lightly - as transparent when it comes to their military and ideological plans....

North Korea, having an important factor of being geopolitically positioned next to Red China and Russia, have been tip-toeing the line of whether or not to surrender their plutonium stock nuclear program to the IAEA officials, and the UN security council. Kim Jong Il and his ambassadors are currently having trouble conversing with the recently-elected successor of Koffi Anan, South Korean UN Secretary General, Ban-Ki Moon, and other State department officials notably Christopher Hill. As of yet, N. Korea did not meet the lengthily-discussed deadline of December 31st 2007, and instead launched a number of long-range test missiles into space and had heated encounters with the Japanese and S. Koreans in the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan.

Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and several countries in South America under repressive communist/leftist administration are all hotbeds of drug cartels and armed rebel movements, as they are major contributors of oil volatility from their respective region, ie. Oil refineries dotted all over the Mexican Gulf, Venezuela's Paraguana Refining Complex (CRP), Orinco, etc etc. These countries individually can not, but collectively can unsettle the global market and political/social atmosphere. Moreover, there is a great need to take into consideration the increasing economic involvement of and recent trade ties (2006-2008) with Iran, China, and Russia.

Darkly Dexter

02-08-2008, 08:23 AM

Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and several countries in South America under repressive communist/leftist administration are all hotbeds of drug cartels and armed rebel movements, as they are major contributors of oil volatility from their respective region, ie. Oil refineries dotted all over the Mexican Gulf, Venezuela's Paraguana Refining Complex (CRP), Orinco, etc etc. These countries individually can not, but collectively can unsettle the global market and political/social atmosphere. Moreover, there is a great need to take into consideration the increasing economic involvement of and recent trade ties (2006-2008) with Iran, China, and Russia.

Colombia has a right-wing government. Bolivia and Cuba are living in misery. They can't do anything. And here in South America there are two kinds of leftist governments: Moderates and with a good relation with EEUU (Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay), and Radicals (Venezuela and Bolivia). The most powerfull nations, and with better quality of life are those with Moderate leftist governments. So, there won't be an alliance between all the South American leftists against United States.

rijuco

02-08-2008, 08:32 AM

kronos251

02-08-2008, 09:29 AM

Colombia has a right-wing government. Bolivia and Cuba are living in misery. They can't do anything. And here in South America there are two kinds of leftist governments: Moderates and with a good relation with EEUU (Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay), and Radicals (Venezuela and Bolivia). The most powerfull nations, and with better quality of life are those with Moderate leftist governments. So, there won't be an alliance between all the South American leftists against United States.
Exactly. I acknowledge you live there and you do know a lot more since you are on the grassroots level, so to speak. But I did not mention "all of South America" of course, as you know very well, that some have established financial trade relations with China, Russia, and Iran. Together, intercontinentally speaking, the analogy of multiple Davids against Goliath is not exactly unimaginable.

I think you don't give America enough credit saying it isn't ready to elect a woman or african american. Have some faith in the american people.
That's exactly what I said to Gamma Ray who started this thread. There should be no physical characteristics of a candidate that would constitute a a major hindrance. What matters more is inside their head, and how they would manifest those ideas.

BlackLantern

02-08-2008, 09:50 AM

I like Obama. I will vote Obama. Would rather have Edwards/Kucinich/Ron Paul...but

I think you don't give America enough credit saying it isn't ready to elect a woman or african american. Have some faith in the american people.

America will not put a minority or a woman in the white house this year. most Americans would sooner have more of the same than put one of "those people" in office

Malice

02-08-2008, 09:59 AM

Personally, I dont think that the majority of those in the regular business world actually care one way or another whether someone is female/black/or mormon.
I sure as hell dont.

BlackLantern

02-08-2008, 10:06 AM

the business world may not.....but there is a lot of other America out there

CorpusBlack

02-08-2008, 10:07 AM

the business world may not.....but there is a lot of other America out there

A LOT of them.

bell110

02-08-2008, 11:47 AM

Read again on my post earlier regarding Ayatollah Khumeini and the Islamist jihad revolution of the 1970's and the war between Iraq and Iran (1980-1988). His preachings pervaded even the most secular of governments in the Middle East, including Afghanistan that was under Soviet stronghold at the time. And a decade before, the Six Day War (1967 - Israel vs Egypt, Jordan and Syria) and the Israel-Palestinian War (1971-1972). These wars all have to do with oil and natural resources, which universally was and still is the prominent energy source of the global economy. Once the price of oil shoots up, everything shoots up - food prices, consumer costs, real estate, etc resulting to unemployment, and later inflation, and then recession. Hence the high discontentment in the US and all over the world from late 1960's to the entire decade of the 1980's.

Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, and other communist countries from all regions which were remnants of the Cold War still thrive with their ballistic missile programs and nuclear warheads, and most of all, they and their people thrive on the communist philosophy.

Communism is reached through poor socio-economic divisions, wherein the Lenin and Marx philosophy counts heavily on the lack of faith in a democratic government. To hand down all rights, possessions of the people (bourgeoisie) to one elitist group, is the goal, so as to free men of any responsibility; to free men of any cause of war, in order to have peace. That is the communist goal. It is good on paper, yet not applicable in real life. Democracy encourages open trade policy: "You keep what you earn; Reap what you sow; A good day ends with a hard day's work."

Security of a country is the foundation of a sound democracy.

Ok, you're point was more about being hit economically rather than physically.

Again, read the post earlier in regards to Khumeini and Saddam's ambivalence and also the documentation of hundreds and thousands of mass gravesites still being found in Iraq.

Truman's controversial order of the atomic bomb twice on Japan, in retaliation of Pearl Harbor, destroyed not only Japan's infrastracture, but also its people due to the radiation fallout. The Marshall Plan had achieved the reconstruction needed, from ground level up to the high ranks of the emperor, and 60 years on, Japan has turned foe to ally, and is the leading economy in Asia, the second in the world. Alright, what about Nazi Germany? Germany didn't invade us, so why invade them...? You see what I mean..

Better Saddam killing innocents than us. And Nazi Germany was a real threat to us and the world. Iraq was never a threat to anyone.

bell110,

I am part of those thousands of US families who have their family members currently serving in the Battles for Iraq and Afghanistan and also in Mindanao, Philippines.

So I tell that to myself and to my family and to other families (America, Iraqi, et al) who have made the ultimate sacrifice. My cousin had risked his life and limb in Iraq back in 2003, and we prayed everyday - and still do - for the success of their mission, and the success of the implementation of that mission, no matter how hard or how long it took.

You are very optimistic. From what I've read, I can't be that optimistic.

We happen to believe in this "unjust war" Washington politicians love to coin, in fact to the point of dying for what we believe in. Gen Petraeus has delivered remarkable results, and we are happy not only for the American people in our homeland, but more so for the Iraqi, Afghan, and Filipino people. However, much work still has to be done, and yes, a very long way to go, but it's getting there.

.
A. :-/ :huh: :csad:

B. All the examples I gave are not really from me, but from recent history, and personal experiences in the Philippines. It would be helpful if you read up on history, and then - only then - you won't sound so cynical to the point you sound biased.

And I did not mention anything about censorship of consumer products.

I know, I was using that for an example when I though you were just taking about protection from a physical attack. The balance of protection and liberty/justice.

And I have read up on my history, that is why I'm so cynical. And I don't see myself as being biased.

There is no need to be sarcastic. There are far worse governments in other third world countries, who don't give a damn about things like social security and don't have a translation for the word, "insurance". People would actually gape at the sight of the sanitation and order of asphalt on the streets, and the sight of abundant food and clothing. No cause of famine, or severe threat of natural diseases.

Ok, no sarcasism. But, it is true. Bush is not any of those things. And a lot of our fellow citizens aren't either.

You are right that our democratic government may not be perfect, and should be answerable for its bureaucracies and corruption, but it's the only one we have, and many do aspire to.

.

Just so you know, I'm not some rabid anti-Bush liberal. I didn't vote for him, but back then, I'd rather had him win the recount than Gore. I just thought he would be another mediocre president. It wasn't until 9/11, and his numerous **** ups and lies that I truely started to despise him. And the fact that going into Iraq was clearly the wrong thing to do, yet most politicians and the public were for it. I really felt that all rationality in our country was gone. I just can't help but to feel that we are being the bad guys, and it's a sickening feeling.

kronos251

02-09-2008, 09:27 AM

Ok, you're point was more about being hit economically rather than physically.

Yes, being taken down economically, and then physically or both. Politics depend greatly on the economic stature (or lack thereof) as do economics is never sustainable, because of the vicissitudes brought on by politics.

Better Saddam killing innocents than us. And Nazi Germany was a real threat to us and the world. Iraq was never a threat to anyone.You have a point about us being in a war killing the enemy, while the innocents are tragically caught in the crossfire. We all find it hard to endure that truth. We, most of all, the families who have someone fighting and dying there... Another truth that is also hard to endure is that Saddam Hussein was a threat, there is no removing it in history. He was not an idle man. And ignoring him would prove disastrous, giving him more time on what else he could have done to his people and to other foreigners. More so that UN's Kofi Annan was embroiled in the Oil-for-Food scandal, hence the controversy over Hans Blix and the WMDs. We cannot ignore Saddam Hussein like we did in the 90's, as we didn't take seriously Osama Bin Laden.

Geographically, Iraq is at the center of the Middle East - so is Iran - So in essence, those in charge then had power over so much of the oil producers and refineries, and the OPEC.

You are very optimistic. From what I've read, I can't be that optimistic.No, my friend, I am not optimistic to the point of being blind - of course not. I emphasize so much so on the history of the regions and the history of economics, that we don't have to repeat the mistakes and negligence that were made way back when.

Optimism, no, not so much, though a realistic assessment comes from the performance and the enforcement of that mission. Without it, the mission is meaningless and our fellow soldiers are simply dying there in vain, and are not being appreciated for their sacrifices and their beliefs...

I know, I was using that for an example when I though you were just taking about protection from a physical attack. The balance of protection and liberty/justice.Alright.

And I have read up on my history, that is why I'm so cynical. And I don't see myself as being biased.

I once thought that too. That I was cynical back in 2006, that there were multiple suicide/car bombings, and terrible, terrible casualties from both sides every single month..... If the war ended right there and then... I wouldn't know how.. or what to feel. I would've felt some sort of relief, I guess. But then my cousin's and his comrades' efforts would've been futile if the war ended.

I realized being cynical didn't help anything, did not add to anything.... And yes experience does show that when confronted with so many problems, we set our feelings aside and find solutions - on how to gradually eliminate the problem, economically and militarily, and so weakening the very source that caused those problems.

Ok, no sarcasism. But, it is true. Bush is not any of those things. And a lot of our fellow citizens aren't either.

Just so you know, I'm not some rabid anti-Bush liberal. I didn't vote for him, but back then, I'd rather had him win the recount than Gore. I just thought he would be another mediocre president. It wasn't until 9/11, and his numerous **** ups and lies that I truely started to despise him. And the fact that going into Iraq was clearly the wrong thing to do, yet most politicians and the public were for it. I really felt that all rationality in our country was gone. I just can't help but to feel that we are being the bad guys, and it's a sickening feeling.

I very well understand where you're coming from, and I am not here to champion one politician over the other, attack or even convince anybody.

Like I said in another thread, I reserve judgment on incumbent and former presidents, as what and how their legacy will realistically affect in the long run.

Because of 9/11, there will be no longer mediocre presidents... because we are no longer in a mediocre situation... it was a rude wake up call, and so many did not have to perish.

After WWII, I didn't expect my grandfather to come out of retirement and he went on to serve again in Vietnam. He said he felt that he could sincerely help the country after years of being at war with itself, and the Soviet Union, a former ally, was in fact at the height of its power and conquered nearly all of Asia. Of course, 10 consecutive years in Vietnam meant in America's mind there was no sense of progress on the ground whatsoever, and yes, that sickening feeling penetrated and disappointed every heart and mind in America. And the world was watching. My grandfather said, we lost our faith in ourselves, and after the Vietnam war, we didn't know what else to do. We didn't even leave a base there, not even a simple reconstruction plan afterwards. And the communist countries around the world were laughing.

The sole deciding factor and the crucial pivotal point was how any mission is implemented on the ground. Otherwise, we would've ended up as yet another regrettable failure..