US Screwed if Obama Wins

[Aceflyer]

I obviously just read more news than you do.

 

Irrelevant even if true (which is by no means obvious). Sources please.

 

Heheh, well they have to be different in some respects, otherwise there'd be a revolt. On the important points the Clintons and the Bush's are no different.

 

More specifically?

 

There's a difference. Very few people on Earth can claim to come up with an independent thought. What matters is whether or not someone told Clinton to have certain policies, or whether she listened to a few people and genuinely thought the policy to be a good idea. So many politicians have a hand in Hillary being where she is, that i doubt she has much decision making allowance.

 

And you have proof that no one told Obama to support certain policies? I highly doubt that, since there's no way he can be an expert on all the issues he faces as a politician. Hence, he has to listen to certain trusted advisers on at least certain things. All politicians have to.

 

Also, many politicians have a hand in Obama being where he is.

 

I just read about this, and i have to ask you: How is this a cheap-shot? I would probably have the same reaction, and give the same impression. It's an opinion.

 

Yes it's an opinion, that doesn't mean it isn't a cheapshot.

 

After Clinton had good-naturedly responded to a question about what is sometimes called her "personality deficit" -- "Well, that hurts my feelings" -- she went on to concede that Obama is "very likeable." Obama responded with a curt "You're likeable enough, Hillary."

 

Wince. Slap. A version of "nice personality" -- the killer description of a girl from my high school days. In this case, Obama was echoing the truth of the likability charge, dismissing Clinton because she was, as all the polls said, beaten.

 

It was an ugly moment that showed a side of Obama we had not seen and it might not have been characteristic. But it made for vivid TV, a High-Definition Truth, and probably more than a few women recoiled from it. Obama could have remedied the situation -- Lazio later recovered his standing with suburban women -- but the Illinois senator continued to look disdainful on television and seemed to be acting for all the world as if his inauguration was just a mere formality. He had the thing won.

[SeVeR]

I just read about this, and i have to ask you: How is this a cheap-shot? I would probably have the same reaction, and give the same impression. It's an opinion.

 

Yes it's an opinion, that doesn't mean it isn't a cheapshot.

What i mean is: Obama gave an answer to a question. You can either call him honest or a liar. A cheap-shot is when you come out with a calculated, but irrelevent, statement to try and sabotage your opponent. In Obama's case i would call him honest, because he risked a bit of controversy to respond that way. I don't see how he attempted to sabotage Hillary by doing what what he did, do you? So i give him credit for honesty.

 

I don't have time to make a more in-depth response to your questions yet, maybe later.

Edited April 24, 2008 by SeVeR

[Aceflyer]

I just read about this, and i have to ask you: How is this a cheap-shot? I would probably have the same reaction, and give the same impression. It's an opinion.

 

Yes it's an opinion, that doesn't mean it isn't a cheapshot.

What i mean is: Obama gave an answer to a question. You can either call him honest or a liar. A cheap-shot is when you come out with a calculated, but irrelevent, statement to try and sabotage your opponent. In Obama's case i would call him honest, because he risked a bit of controversy to respond that way. I don't see how he attempted to sabotage Hillary by doing what what he did, do you? So i give him credit for honesty.

 

I don't have time to make a more in-depth response to your questions yet, maybe later.

 

Clinton was gracious enough to say that Obama was "very likeable". Obama was clearly not willing to extend that same courtesy to Clinton.

[SeVeR]

And if you don't like someone then you shouldn't pretend to like them. I respect that.

[Aceflyer]

And if you don't like someone then you shouldn't pretend to like them. I respect that.

 

You realize that at!@#$%^&*ude isn't conducive toward conducting diplomacy? If a President of the United States has that at!@#$%^&*ude, I'd say that President would be about as bad as President Bush.

 

More to the point, it's not about lying, more about politeness. Saying someone is "very likeable," for example, does not imply that you personally like said someone. There are people who I would consider "very likeable" who I actually don't like.

[SeVeR]

You don't have to tell them you don't like them, you just don't have to say you DO like them!

[Aceflyer]

You don't have to tell them you don't like them, you just don't have to say you DO like them!

 

Or just say that they are "likeable" or "very likeable" and leave it at that, as Clinton did (but Obama didn't). See my previous post.

[NBVegita]

I can't believe you're arguing that.

 

The statement was a simple enough statement, hillary is "likeable enough" to become president. It was not a cheap shot. It is a well known fact that Clinton has never been known for being personally "likeable". So was Obama supposed to lie and say "No Hillary, regardless of what the polls say, the American people find you very likeable".

 

You know it's bad when Sever and I completely agree.

[Aceflyer]

I can't believe you're arguing that.

 

The statement was a simple enough statement, hillary is "likeable enough" to become president. It was not a cheap shot. It is a well known fact that Clinton has never been known for being personally "likeable". So was Obama supposed to lie and say "No Hillary, regardless of what the polls say, the American people find you very likeable".

 

You know it's bad when Sever and I completely agree.

 

New Hampshire voters obviously begged to differ. Personally, I actually agree with you and SeVeR. But voters - and especially New Hampshire women Democratic voters, apparently - differ.

[NBVegita]

The problem is that there is always some demographic in our overly "liberal" society who will take offence to something.

[Aileron]

Yeah, I wouldn't hold that against Obama either. This is a race for the presidency. The winner gets to be mocked on the Colbert Report every day, and gets to be labeled evil incarnate by a few dozen despotic countries. There's no sense in worrying about the candidate's feelings now.

 

 

 

Ducky, what's wrong with his statement is that good Americans are supposed to cling to their rights. Those rights are what separates civilized countries from dictatorships. By the way, its also absurd.

 

 

The other thing I don't like about Obama is that his support comes from the internet, for instance MoveOn.org. While I'm sure this includes a lot of normal people, the internet includes two other groups: Foreigners and miscellaneous losers. I don't mind foreigners donating to the campaigns for their own countries, but I don't like that group contributing to US elections. I'm sure as we speak some of the Muslim Brotherhood's money is being channeled over the internet into either Obama's or Clinton's campaigns. I'd rather it didn't get there. For another thing, the number of Chinese internet users has surp!@#$%^&*ed the number of US internet users. China could eventually use this to gain means of influencing US elections.

 

The second group is just as bad. The internet is generally filled with paranoid middle-aged perverts living out of their parents' basement. Before the internet was invented, these people had no means to network with other human beings, because they were losers. Now, they can network with other similarly minded losers, and engage in things like pedophilia, coming up with conspiracy theories, and contribution to Obama's campaign. While I'd say such losers should get the legal right to vote, the fact of the matter is their status as losers demonstrates that they don't know how the real world works, and their opinion should not be respected.

 

 

 

 

As for McCain being 'the same as Bush', keep in mind two things: First off, his son is a Marine currently stationed in Iraq. I'd guess he isn't going to risk his son's life carelessly. (Granted, as a Marine, the younger McCain is probably gung-ho and might mail his father letters about how he's getting bored and ask his father to invade Iran just so he can get a bigger body count.) Also, he's a former POW, so he'll probably be afraid for soldiers who get captured.

 

However, the thing I really like about McCain is this: He was never a lawyer - he was a career fighter pilot*. The larger problems in the US are an indirect result of the entire government being over-populated by a single profession. My suspicion is that the abundance of lawyers or career politicians with law degrees is why both parties show a lot of negative similarities. It would be ideal for a third 'no lawyer' party to be established with the single purpose of getting lawyers out of office. That won't happen, but atleast we can vote for candidates who aren't lawyers.

 

*Okay, so he wasn't a good fighter pilot. Plenty of pilots get shot down over enemy territory, but it takes a really special pilot to get shot down while parked on the flight deck.

 

 

The notion that McCain and Bush are the same is really Democrat propaganda. Is is clearly obvious that 100 million people will not all have the same mindset, but that is exactly what the Democrats are implying when they try to paint every Republican as a Bush clone. Why they want to do this is simple. They think it would be easier to run against Bush that it would be to run against McCain. I don't criticize the Democrats for this. It's a fair opening. It will also be the first argument blown apart when McCain starts really campaigning.

[»Ducky]

Rofl, Good americans are supposed to cling to their rights? Good americans acknowledge when rights should simply be evolved and amended after time. Good americans should be intelligent enough to understand we have the facilities now that soldiers don't needlessly have to camp in people homes, that the right to own a gun is given against national military take over and not so you can randomly shoot whoever is on your property.

 

Why are most civil matters still taken care of by a secular judge when the total amount of damages is over 20 bucks?

It's because the amendment in itself is outdated, we're not going to blow a complete jury's time over a civil matter of 30$

 

Good Americans realize that amendments made over 200 years ago do not have the same context that they do today and shouldn't needlessly cling to them as 'rights'.

---------

 

I have to give props towards the lolworthy post you just made though

The internet is generally filled with paranoid middle-aged perverts living out of their parents' basement.

I'm sure as we speak some of the Muslim Brotherhood's money is being channeled over the internet into either Obama's or Clinton's campaigns

Edited April 25, 2008 by Ducky

[quash]

Does anyone else think the US is screwed if Obama or Hillary become president?

Not in the least. You wanna elaborate?

[rootbear75]

Does anyone else think the US is screwed if Obama or Hillary become president?

Not in the least. You wanna elaborate?

did you read ANY of the posts?

[quash]

The second group is just as bad. The internet is generally filled with paranoid middle-aged perverts living out of their parents' basement. Now, they can network with other similarly minded losers, and engage in things like pedophilia, coming up with conspiracy theories, and contribution to Obama's campaign. While I'd say such losers should get the legal right to vote, the fact of the matter is their status as losers demonstrates that they don't know how the real world works, and their opinion should not be respected.

 

That won't happen, but atleast we can vote for candidates who aren't lawyers.

Make up yer mind: do ya hate democracy or not?

[NBVegita]

Just because you feel that the second amendment is outdated doesn't mean it's unintelligent to think otherwise.

 

I really don't want to go on with this as this has been the topic of many lengthy discussions already.

[»Ducky]

Just because you feel that the second amendment is outdated doesn't mean it's unintelligent to think otherwise.

 

I really don't want to go on with this as this has been the topic of many lengthy discussions already

.

Fine with me, I'll drop the topic. You have the right to play god in 'self defense' all you want and nothing I ever say is going to change you or anyone elses mind. America, home of the free, blah blah and so on.

[Aileron]

Hey, I don't really believe that 'living do!@#$%^&*ent' bull!@#$%^&* regarding the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. The Cons!@#$%^&*ution is the rock upon which the government is built. Rocks aren't alive and they don't evolve.

 

Putting the analogies aside, the Bill of Rights shouldn't change that often, particularly over a historically insignificant recession.

 

 

An interesting email from some guy in Germany:

 

We in Germany cannot figure out why you in the U.S.

are even bothering to hold an election.

 

On one side, you have a !@#$%^&* who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer.

And a lawyer who is married to a !@#$%^&* who is a lawyer.

 

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with

a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

 

Is there a contest here?

[SeVeR]

To say the cons!@#$%^&*ution shouldn't evolve (because it isn't alive) is to say that it doesn't represent the people in any way whatsoever. Societies change and evolve, and so must the laws they live by.

 

One of the reasons i don't like Hillary:

 

Recently Jewish representatives of the three major presidential candidates held a debate. Hillary Clinton's representative stood up in all seriousness to say:

 

"The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties (of Israel)."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8031702440.html

 

That's why i called her a Zionist. Fear-mongering, well we've all heard about the advertisement. Continuity of the status quo, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...29/195654.shtml . This article reveals she voted for the war in Iraq, and now uses the stupidity excuse of "it was a mistake". Remind you of anyone? Anyway, i can't remember what else i said about her, but these are some of the reasons i strongly dislike Hillary.

Edited April 25, 2008 by SeVeR

[»Ducky]

In regards to the Iraq vote, I find it easier to support an individual who recognizes it as a mistake opposed to someone who flaunts his disapproval and lack of vote to invade Iraq when he was never even in the senate to actually cast a vote.

It's easy to say what you would have done in hindsight when there's no possible record of it recorded.

[Aileron]

I agree the Bill of Rights can change once in a while, but this isn't the time for it. The First Amendment should certainly not be messed with. Changes in the Cons!@#$%^&*ution should be reserved for dire, serious problems. The disaster involving prohibition was an example of this. Some people got it in their heads to do a cons!@#$%^&*utional change when a mere legislative change was more appropriate. Also, changes by no means should be done by the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

It wasn't a mistake on her part. That was a deliberate power play by the democratic party. Convince Bush they are behind him, then turn around and reverse opinion the minute boots hit the ground.

[darkhosis]

McInsane and Clinton are controlled by the jewish lobby. I'd argue US is screwed much, much more if McInsane wins vs Obama (even though I think Obama and especially his wife are racist & bigots). Frankly all three candidates blow and the only real option is already out the window, that being Ron Paul (htf did he only have 2 votes before my vote on the "poll" here?).

 

I *used* to vote a straight Republican ticket, but wake up now... the Republican party isn't what it was just a decade ago.

 

After realizing that more people in PA voted for Hillary, (the uneducated, the old, and rednecks), I realize that overall, there are a majority of seniors who still vote more than young and educated people. Combined, those people wont elect a black man because they are still very racist, and they wont elect a woman because they still follow old ways. Unfortunately, this means McCain wins by default - not by skill or talent. We're basically doomed.

Oh, lord, give me a break. You want to talk about uneducated? How about all the blacks that vote for Obama - they're all college educated, right? Ever try looking into some demographics? If you're going to infer that Hillary won in Pennsylvania due to the preponderance of "uneducated, old, rednecks" then at least be equal opportunity - all the xxxxxxx vote for Obama (nearly NINETY percent!) and in many cases they aren't very well educated themselves.... You want to talk about racism? Ninety percent? OK, sure, it's on issues.

 

BTW, you say redneck, I say xxxxxxx (nah, edited, actually I shouldnt stoop to that same level). It's no different... and for the people that believe it to be so, grats on your successful brainwashing.

 

Just too many bitter white folk in Pennsylvania, ya'll.. clinging to their guns and what not.. boy howdy

Edited April 26, 2008 by darkhosis

[AstroProdigy]

The democrats have done no better. The Clintons' date=' who have been the largest democratic(party) figures in the past 30 years are renowned for their dishonesty. Hillary has been caught in more lies just in her campaign than most politicians I can remember. Even Billy, leaving office with over a 60% approval rating, also left office with over 65% of Americans believing he was dishonest and not trustworthy.[/quote']

That's the Clintons' fault not so much the party. With McCain it is the party.

 

Ultimately I still fail to see where you are saying he is conforming to the conservatives. Most' date=' and I say most not all, of his policies haven't changed for at least a decade. Again you have a senator who has a PROVEN record of not abiding by "party politics" and combating against the very same people you're saying he's conforming to. Yes he has policies he's conservative on. Yes he has policies he's liberal on. Which I again say make him a moderate.[/quote']

Well on social issues I agree McCain has had little change, but that part is irrelevant because it would be the same Roberts or Alito type of nomination regardless. On economic issues, however, he's been moving quite far to the right even further to the right than Bush on issues relating to the recession.

 

 

And as for threatening Iran' date=' well I could go on for an entire other topic for why that could be a good idea and why it is warranted, but for now I'll say that I actually agree with Clinton in her statement that if Iran attacks Isreal, we attack Iran.[/quote']

Threats are a great idea because it rallies Iranians behind their government while at the same time stating the obvious of what would happen if Iran attacked Israel so that way we can further hurt any hope for cooperation with Iran.

 

 

However' date=' the thing I really like about McCain is this: He was never a lawyer - he was a career fighter pilot*. The larger problems in the US are an indirect result of the entire government being over-populated by a single profession. My suspicion is that the abundance of lawyers or career politicians with law degrees is why both parties show a lot of negative similarities. It would be ideal for a third 'no lawyer' party to be established with the single purpose of getting lawyers out of office. That won't happen, but atleast we can vote for candidates who aren't lawyers.[/quote']

Oh crap I agreed with Aileron my head hurts.

[NBVegita]

That's the Clintons' fault not so much the party. With McCain it is the party.

 

If you say you can't blame the party for the politics of the individuals, then you can't blame an individual for the politics of the party.

 

As for Iran, there is no hope for cooperation with Iran in this decade. Not singularly because of American sentiment, also because of Iranian sentiment.

 

As for his economic issues I agree with his stance (on some things), the solution to an economy where people are struggling to pay for food and gas, where the average citizen is spending more in a year than they make, is not to raise taxes.

[AstroProdigy]

That's the Clintons' fault not so much the party. With McCain it is the party.

If you say you can't blame the party for the politics of the individuals' date=' then you can't blame an individual for the politics of the party.[/quote']

I didn't say the party's blameless it's just the Republican Party has much more of a negative influence due to the size of its base as well as how things have turned out for that party for the past decade and a half.

 

As for Iran' date=' there is no hope for cooperation with Iran in this decade. Not singularly because of American sentiment' date=' also because of Iranian sentiment.[/quote'']

Says who? Iran was very cooperative before Bush went and ruined it with his "axis of evil" talk. Iranians still want to see cooperation between themselves and Americans. They won't be puppets obviously, but it could easily be a "you scratch my back I scratch yours" relationship. We could have done that with Russia too, but I'm afraid that possibility might be too far spoiled to be saved without a substantive period of showing our goodwill first. Iran's governing theocracy is also very practical as is Sadr. They're adversaries because we made them so. Al Qaeda is an organization we could never ally ourselves with because of their very nature. Iran's theocracy is an organization that came to power as a reaction to negative American influence and have stayed anti-American because of a long period of anti-Iranian policies. If we finally acknowledge their importance in the Middle East and try having friendlier relations then we could get along; this would be a more natural relationship too since unlike most Sunni Arabs, Shiites and especially Shiite Persians would support it.

 

As for his economic issues I agree with his stance (on some things)' date=' the solution to an economy where people are struggling to pay for food and gas, where the average citizen is spending more in a year than they make, is not to raise taxes.[/quote']

This does nothing to tackle the issues involved that actually cause people to spend more than they make. It's a suggestion of what NOT to do, but is in no way a solution. To actually talk about how our consumerism and the promotion of it by the government as the cause of overspending would kill McCain's appeal among economic conservatives and libertarians. I'm not saying he hasn't mentioned this, but from what I've seen of his economic plans it seems to be either general, unfeasible, or just plain naive.

Edited April 26, 2008 by AstroProdigy