AstroProdigy Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 I think both Clinton and Obama are both overrated. Edwards is the better candidate regardless of the lack of precedents he'll break.
SeVeR Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 If this race ends up as Clinton vs Guiliani then i'm actually gonna puke.
NBVegita Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 If clinton becomes president I'm moving to the UK.
jacob hunter! Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 lol.... I thought just maybe al Gore would run again He cares so much for global warming.
AstroProdigy Posted April 5, 2007 Author Report Posted April 5, 2007 (edited) Barak Obama is nice, but where exactly is his record? We already took a chance with someone who lacks a record and got screwed with 8 years of Bush we won't have more chances to screw up for a while. Edited April 5, 2007 by AstroProdigy
NBVegita Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Then vote for the republicans. Obama is the only democratic candidate I would vote for. And after researching it a lot, I don't believe the hype going on about the anthropogenic effects on climate. Gore knows he'd get the vote of the environmentalists and would lose the votes of the skeptics.
Aileron Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 I wouldn't leave the country if Obama were elected president. Any of the others and I might consider it... Ofcourse if the Republicans nominate Conzolizza Rice, the Democratic Primary wouldn't matter.
Greased_Lightning Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 If Guiliani gets on the ticket i probably won't even fill in a circle on the president line. McCain's my horse, even if he doesn't get the nomination.
AstroProdigy Posted April 7, 2007 Author Report Posted April 7, 2007 I'm taking an atmospheric class and also research global warming and I came up with a very different conclusion. To me the debate is manufactured. Global warming is well do!@#$%^&*ented and even if its only 90% sure it's happening that's not enough to try to stop such cataclismic consequences? We're not playing the lottery here. Gore isn't even running. The people still behind the Republican Party are the Conservatives and it'l be a cold day in you know where before they let a black woman be the Republican nominee for president. If it's Gulliani versus Clinton it's third party all the way. Edwards vs McCain for the win!
NBVegita Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 I never said I disputed the fact that the global climate is getting warmer. Through extensive research I don't believe the published severity of the anthropogenic effects on the climate change.
Tiq Posted April 8, 2007 Report Posted April 8, 2007 To stay on topic, I like either Obama or Edwards to win the Democratic nomination, and McCain to win the Republican nomination. I'm not entirely sure who I will vote for yet. Have to do the proper fact-finding and research before I can make a proper decision, ya know. To steer away from the original topic, I like the links that you have posted as they are rather informative (though, I could not view Sever's link, for some odd reason). Having said that, I do believe that we have a large impact on our environment. I am not nearly as informed on the subject of global warming, as you are, Vegita, but the evidence Gore has provided is quite compelling, at least for me. Maybe you guys should create a Global Warming thread, cuz I dunno about everyone else, but I'm just visiting this thread to talk about the attractive and wealthy presidential candidates
Tiq Posted April 9, 2007 Report Posted April 9, 2007 Honestly, I think Edwards has the best shot in the Democratic nomination. The more interesting race will be for the Republican nomination, IMO.
Tiq Posted April 9, 2007 Report Posted April 9, 2007 I suppose it is foolish to the infinite degree to request that this stay a topic about the primaries? I dunno, maybe it is too early for such a thread, but I was thinkin' that this was going to be about the primaries Forget I said anything gents, as you were, just don't bite my head off
NBVegita Posted April 9, 2007 Report Posted April 9, 2007 lol no I throughly agree. I really hope Edwards doesn't make it. The only dem I like in the race is obama.
Tiq Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 I don't necessarily want Edwards to win the Democratic nomination. I just think that Obama and Clinton are getting way too much attention and are perhaps a bit overhyped. Personally, I am kind of leaning towards voting for McCain if he gets the Republican nomination.
NBVegita Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Well I wouldn't say I'd vote for obama for pres, I just hope he's the democratic nominee.
PoLiX Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Split out Global Warming Stuff... Might sound a bit odd in here now, but I'm sure it'll straighten out.
Aileron Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 I think I can speak the truth for everyone when I say this: Yes, Global Warming is an issue, but no one is going to elect a President based upon it. Basically, its a problem for Congress. If we were to reduce Global Warming, the bill to do so would have to be created in Congress. All the President would have to do for the process is sign the thing. The overall goal of the next Presidency involves dismantling all terrorist organizations before they acquire a nuke or lesser WMD. It involves tracking down all nuclear materials in the former USSR, taking out terrorists organizations, and taking out other possible developers. What I (as a Republican admittingly) would like to see in a Democrat, is though the party stands against the Iraq War, I'd like to see a candidate who didn't complain too much about it. Point being it was a leadership decision. If they didn't have WMDs, we'd be involved in an unecessary conventional war...if they did, we would eventually be involved in a nuclear war. There's no luxery of hindsight in such a decision. Whether we knew that they had WMDs or not was the CIA's job, the Presidents job was to measure the risks based upon what he sees and make a decision based upon that information, with the knowledge that no matter what he decides the decision is the wrong one because no intelligence is perfect. Its analagous to the difference between playing poker, and watching poker on TV. When you are watching it on TV, you see all the player's cards. If a player is sitting on pocket Kings, and his opponant is acting weak, he raises. However, if someone watching TV sees all and knows that the opponant has pocket Aces, he doesn't have a right to call the player a moron, because he sees the outcome of the hand, not the information that was available at the time of decision. They want to say it was wrong, that's their opinion. However, if they do not understand why Bush made the decision he did, and wish to call him all sorts of names, then they are not ready for a leadership position.
SeVeR Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Whether we knew that they had WMDs or not was the CIA's job, the Presidents job was to measure the risks based upon what he sees and make a decision based upon that information, Not unless he told the CIA what to report. A recent "dishonest" report has come out of the intelligence services about Iran aswell. It doesn't look like a coincidence to me. Story goes: 1. USA dislikes country.2. USA incriminates country within the press.3. USA produces false intelligence.4. USA invades. But the corruption runs deep in American politics. People often say "power corrupts" but in America you have to become corrupt to get power in the first place, it's a requirement! Ron Paul is a republican candidate that seems to see through it all. Obama, despite his religious affiliation, appears to be genuine aswell.
AstroProdigy Posted April 22, 2007 Author Report Posted April 22, 2007 Hillary says if she's elected she will make Bill the roaming amb!@#$%^&*ador to the world. That's very tempting.
NBVegita Posted April 23, 2007 Report Posted April 23, 2007 Yes it is tempting to have bill clinton out of the states.
11___________ Posted April 28, 2007 Report Posted April 28, 2007 I want Stephen Colbert or John Steward. They both have some idea of this screwed up mess. True Obama and Hillary are overrated. From what i have heard:Hillary has a screwed up view of how to fix things in Iraq. I havent heard much from Obama besides hes black and muslim?
Yoink Posted April 28, 2007 Report Posted April 28, 2007 Stewart* I think that Edwards is the most qualified candidate and has the best capacity for running this country - though I would like to see Obama win as well.
NBVegita Posted April 29, 2007 Report Posted April 29, 2007 I think rice is the only woman I would think of for president at the present time.
Recommended Posts