(I decided not to put this in ID, since something as huge and vital as this election being considered an 'intellectual' topic would be too depressing).
I found this today, and thought someone should put a thread up about the election, since it decides our fates etc. It should be discussed. Though hopefully without fights.
From the Economist magazine's website; a global electoral map. It's pretty neat. (One small problem with it - it shows America as having an 80% lean towards Obama, which is plainly untrue. It's just American people who read the Economist website. However, apart from them, I think the rest should be pretty much right. Since we can't choose anyway, it doesn't matter too much. 250,000 turned out in Berlin to see Obama; McCain's visit barely registered. The map just colours it in.)
I've become fascinated with this race, despite being on the other side of the sea. I'd like to see Obama win, because I'd feel a lot safer that way. McCain's reaction to the Georgia thing, ie to growl at the Kremlin rather than condemn Georgia for bombing hospitals in South Ossetia, makes me feel uneasy; and then there's the forgien policy behaviour of 'You can see Russia from Alaska' Palin. This is not, as the map shows, an uncommon opinion among people who live outwith the US.
How do you think the candidates are doing? Are they making good calls at this stage in the race?
Another question is why this is such a close race at such a stage. The economy is dead, and people rightly blame Bush for that; people don't want the war anymore; the GOP has screwed it up. Under normal circumstances this would be virtually unlosable for the Dems. It's surely a testament to McCain that it isn't.
If you're American, how do you feel about them and how they would care for you? If you're not, how do you feel they'd act on the international stage and in relations with your nation state in particular?
Close race? Nah.
My state (Florida) has 27 electoral votes. We have registered 600 thousand people, while the Republicans only registered 125K. If Obama wins Florida, its over.
Other than that, he is leading in so many states it is almost a guarantee.
Hey! Read my movie blog! http://centralfloridafilmcritic.blogspot.com
But polls are just polls. Kerry was ahead in them for periods too. Obama's leads in most states aren't in double figures yet; the testament to McCain is that even while he's completely dropping states, while he's taking weekends off and not visiting, while he's not registering nearly as many voters as you - it's not a one-horse race. Considering how much more work Obama and wonderful people like you are putting in, and how badly the GOP've screwed up the past 8 years, the fact that it's not completely decided is strange.Originally Posted by James D.
I don't look at the poll stuff, but if you want to say that it is even sure. I guess I can go with that. But I don't think it is so much that McCain is holding things up as much as we don't trust the Democrats. The Democrats have screwed up so many things here that people don't want to see them around.
Personally, I think we'd do better with Palin since she seems to understand that government isn't about being huge and controlling everything Government is there to keep law and order, but not micro manage the lives of the citizens. It is the citizens job to manage their own lives without the government supporting them every step of the way. Plus she is not corrupt and will actually fight the corruption.
I'd look forward to her being president if it could happen. Obama is a yo-yo he is never exact and is always saying something contrary to what he said early. He just wants votes and is going to say anything to get them. Chrisma is not going to make a good president. He is all fluff. I couldn't take him seriously the way he was acting in the last debate as well.
Curious? There's no limits but your own imagination.
Don't know how to roleplay, but want to learn? Visit Here!
2007 and 2009 Best Writer of TFF and 2009 Most Creative Co-Winner
What in the name of whatever divine being you believe in are you ****ing talking about with saying we'd be better off with Palin? The woman thinks Dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago and that she's Russia's next door neighbor up there in Alaska, a state with a total population that's less than a lot of "small" towns in the continental US. She has NO experience, NO knowledge, and NO ****ING BUSINESS being in an elected office as high as the Vice President. Add in the fact that John McCain's age (72) puts him at a high risk of health issues causing him to die during his first term, you're stuck with an even worse president than Dubya. President Palin. That sounds REALLLLY attractive to me.
The government IS here to govern our every day lives. That's why it exists. Do you want to go back to the days of a weak central government where the US economy was one of the worst off in the world and eventually led to the Civil War?
Obviously I support Obama - He has better economic policies, better foreign policies, better ideas on how to deal with our inevitable depression, he'll have a better cabinet of advisors, he has better supporters, and a better vice presidential candidate.
Palin has no mind of her own, she'll follow McCain as far as she's told to. She'll never question anything, she'll never be a sound voice of reason. Hell the woman even had to ask at one point "What is it exactly the Vice President does?"
-Her history shows that she's manipulative. She fought for billions of dollars to build a bridge the size, scale, and price of the Golden Gate or Brooklyn Bridges that led to an island holding 50 people. Funds were allocated to this after she became Governer of Alaska, at which point she said she was AGAINST the "bridge to nowhere" and instead built roads. Bilions of dollars of roads.
To nowhere. The terrain didn't allow for these roads to work out in the end, and there's a massive road leading up to the site where the bridge was to be built. Billions and billions of dollars of roads.... to nowhere.
Biden disagrees with Obama on a few key issues, not in totality, but in key points. What does this mean? Discussion, reasoning, and ultimately compromising. I'd rather have a President and VP who both have minds of their own, thanks.
James: I love your avatar. Props to you, sir.
Last edited by Sean; 10-07-2008 at 07:32 PM.
Obviously, the Economist's map is biased in many aspects. And for me, enemies of the United States wanting Obama to win is yet another reason to vote against Obama, not for him.
I realize that, to be blunt, too many people are ignorant of the issues. Too many people blame the current economic problems on Bush, for example, when it was Clinton's policies that caused it in the first place. (I've even heard the argument that, sure, Clinton caused it, but it's still all Bush's fault because he didn't reverse and correct Clinton's bad policies.) Too many people find things to complain about concerning OIF and OEF, yet don't realize how badly both were needed and wanted, or how much good has (and will yet) come of them. Too many people see Bush as a shining example of the Republican Party, but fail to realize that Bush is in no way a fiscal conservative, and many conservatives -- myself included -- have problems with him for this. But truth be told, Bush isn't to blame for the vast majority of things pinned on him. I'm all for recognizing things he's to blame for, I just wait for him to do something wrong before I start calling him out on it.
As far as Obama and McCain go ... As little experience as Palin has, she still has more applicable experience than Obama does. And liberals love to complain about how Palin would be close to the office of President, but always fail to discuss how Palin is still more qualified than Obama, who would be IN the office of President. And let's not talk about how old Biden is, or the fact that Obama is a middle-aged black man with a smoking habit.
Biden was a good choice for Obama because he brings, finally, some experiece to the Democratic ticket. Palin was a good choice for McCain because McCain is a liberal Republican, and needed a conservative to get the conservatives who loved Ron Paul, but would vote third-party if not for a more conservative balance to the Republican ticket.
The problem with Obama is that he has done absolutely nothing in his career except advance it. And he hasn't changed -- his entire platform isn't designed to help the country, it's designed to gather votes.
EDIT:
No, it's not. The government is here to stay out of our lives. It's here to protect us from others, NOT to protect us from ourselves.
Last edited by Sasquatch; 10-08-2008 at 03:43 PM.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
That depends on how you want to take that for context. I don't mean it completely 100% literally, but expecting the government to not govern the lives of US citizens is absurd. It was done that way in the past, and it failed.
I also fail to see how Palin can be considered a full-on conservative with her spending practices in Alaska.
Last edited by Sean; 10-08-2008 at 04:16 PM.
Maybe they want to stop being your enemies, and want to stop fighting with you? Macedonia want McCain, like a lot of the eastern bloc, because they think he's their best shot at getting America to go to war with Russia, which would benefit nobody, but would make them feel a little less victimised.
Bush didn't just screw America over; he screwed us over too. You are the hegemon, and for the past 8 years have been an irresponsible hegemon; as such, your standing in the world has sunk and sunk and sunk. Even the UK holds America in contempt now. The 'special relationship' exists only in government chambers these days. China are about to take over as the primary military power, and the Western economy has been hit far harder than theirs in this recent economic mess. Obama is the man to negotiate America's way out of being pushed into second place; McCain is the guy who'd start a war over it. And nobody wants that.
Palin's more qualified? She managed to balloon the debt of a tiny little town, and then of a state with a population less than many continental American towns. She appears to have experience in wasting money, getting indicted for abusing power, and being manipulative. She's a good 'un.
I get the (frankly tiny) smoking habit. But what does Obama being a black man have to do with his health?
What can a presedential candidate do to help a country? Nothing. All they can do is try to gather votes so that they end up in the place where they can change things.What's the use of gathering votes once in office? He's already stated on many occaisions what he'll do once he's there. He has advanced his career, yes, while taking a few years to work as a grassroots community organiser on $50,000 a year. This shows his lack of experience; but the thing's he's said, the way he carries himself, and the fact that he picked Biden to make up for his shortcomings show that he's ready. The President and VP should be a team.
I still think McCain's choice of Palin had nothing to do with her strengths. It was a Karl Rove choice designed to bring the rank and files Republicans into the fold, and to attract scared independents. And a completely failed attempt at wooing Hillary manaics. They wouldn't be a team in office. Europe would weep.
OK, now I'll put my two cents worth in. First of all, the Republicans have now turned this into a smear campaign because they ARE behind in the polls and they are reaching for straws. Secondly, I am an Independant, and although I do agree with Palin on many issues, I now see her as her true self. She is smearing a man as a terrorist, who was 8 years old when Ayers was a radical. Who, which I might add DID turn himself in at one point (Ayers). Now we have a woman standing there ranting and raving about the opposing team. Well now, let's check our books here.....yep...roads to nowhere, a man loses his job because Palin is pissed off because it's her sisters exhusband, and she has the power to cost him his job. Abusing a little power is she? Then we have McCain....he doesn't want to end the war in Iraq. Why? Palin says we would be throwing in the white flag if our toops withdraw. How is that? First of all we are in a war that should NEVER have even started. McCain swore there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq....hmmmm...nope. He was wrong. We did capture AND execute Saddam. There...we won! So what's the deal with the white flag? We were suppose to be looking for BinLaden....remember...the guy that organized 9/11. Oh yeah, our Government, President Bush, must have forgotten about that. And he isn't in Iraq!!
Now McCain said himself during the last debate that HE knows how to capture BinLaden..He knows where he is...HE knows how to do it. Well then why in the hell has he been keeping this great secret for seven years????
Our Government is full of nothing but greedy wealthy people that don't care about anyone or anything but themselves. It's time to clean house and get someone with some real values in office. I agree that Obama does not have a lot of experience, but he at least has the main stream of Americans interest at heart. And he's also willing to bring other countries together as Allies once again. McCain is all about war. I don't know about any of you, but I'm tired our troops dying for what? Oh yes...terrorisim that IS NOT in Iraq! And just exactly why are we spending 10 Billion dollars a month over there?? Let Iraq use their own $79 Billion dollars to rebuild. It's ridiculous!!
McCain wants to tax us ...our health insurance for instance and give HUGE tax cuts to the big Corporate Companies and of course the CEO's! Again...it doesn't trickle down. AND he wants to put a Freeze on EVERYTHING except Military and Veterans. Well now, I support our troops completely, and I do wish safety for all and pray they all come home safely....BUT...what about our elderly, Social Security, Medicare......the Republican party has lost a lot of respect from me. And just for the record, when Clinton was in office, we had a surplus of cash......then came the Bush's (both of them!)
Ah, here we go.
Iran suddenly loves us? Jordan wants to be an ally? Vietnam?
Moreso, Israel wants Obama to win? South Korea loves Obama? Hahahahahahahahahah.
Face it, the map is extremely biased. It's from a very liberal source that is mostly visited by liberal people. It's going to reveal only liberal aspects.Macedonia and Georgia are the only countries that McCain would win, according to the map. (And possibly one other that's incredibly small.) So the Eastern Bloc, according to the map, are prettymuch all going to Obama, too.Macedonia want McCain, like a lot of the eastern bloc, because they think he's their best shot at getting America to go to war with Russia, which would benefit nobody, but would make them feel a little less victimised.
And they would have no reason to think McCain wants war with Russia. Only that Obama wants to gut the military and leave the rest of the world to fend for themselves.Bush didn't screw America over either. Try again.Bush didn't just screw America over; he screwed us over too.The job of the President of the United States is to lead the United States, not make the U.S. popular with all the other kids at school.You are the hegemon, and for the past 8 years have been an irresponsible hegemon; as such, your standing in the world has sunk and sunk and sunk.China has greater military technology than the U.S. does? That's surprising.China are about to take over as the primary military power ...You think McCain would start a war because China might have a more powerful military?... and the Western economy has been hit far harder than theirs in this recent economic mess. Obama is the man to negotiate America's way out of being pushed into second place; McCain is the guy who'd start a war over it. And nobody wants that.
That's, first, the assumption -- baseless assumption -- that McCain would "start a war".
Then, the baseless assumption that McCain would start a war with a country because he feels threatened by it.
Then, the baseless assumption that McCain -- or anybody -- would START a war with a country BECAUSE they're more powerful.Than Obama? Let's see. Palin's got six years as Mayor and two as Governor. That's a total of eight years of executive experience. Obama spent seven years as a State Senator, where he accomplished absoluetly nothing, and was elected to the U.S. Senate over a man who accepted the opposing nomination three months before the election. Once he got into office in 2005, he accomplished absolutely nothing until, after less than 180 working days, he announced his candidacy for President.Palin's more qualified?And the will of the voters apparently has nothing to do with how much they spend, right?She managed to balloon the debt of a tiny little town, and then of a state with a population less than many continental American towns.Black people have a lower life expectancy. Black people who smoke have an even lower life expectancy. According to some liberals who think Obama will be assassinated if he's elected because America is racist, black people in public office have an even lower life expectancy. If he croaks in office, Biden will be President. Biden is not only a dumbass, he's also old -- and if his life comes to an end, Pelosi will end up in office.I get the (frankly tiny) smoking habit. But what does Obama being a black man have to do with his health?
And if Nancy Pelosi ends up as the President of the United States, none of my friends will ever see me again. Either because I will move, or be in prison for assassination.What should be Obama's first priority -- his attempt at the Presidency, or his JOB AS A SENATOR?What can a presedential candidate do to help a country? Nothing.
I wasn't referring only to what he's done while he has been running for President. I was referring to his entire political career. He has no substantial accomplishments under his belt. Nothing. He tagged on with a few things, then voted "Present" on plenty of others.First, where Obama was isn't "grassroots". Second, he made more than $50k/yr. And third, he didn't "take a few years", he did that at the beginning of his career.He has advanced his career, yes, while taking a few years to work as a grassroots community organiser on $50,000 a year.Palin was a good choice for McCain, for reasons I've already explained. She attracted conservatives who didn't like McCain because he's too liberal. She made the party more palatable for independents for want to vote against Obama. And she attracts some of the Hillary voters who think that voting for a woman is more important than voting for somebody for their issues.I still think McCain's choice of Palin had nothing to do with her strengths. It was a Karl Rove choice designed to bring the rank and files Republicans into the fold, and to attract scared independents. And a completely failed attempt at wooing Hillary manaics.Because if the United States President doesn't do things in the best interests of Europe, what should he look out for?They wouldn't be a team in office. Europe would weep.
Democrats are ahead in the polls, and they're still running attack ads. That's politics.When did she say Obama was a terrorist?She is smearing a man as a terrorist, who was 8 years old when Ayers was a radical.
The fact remains that Obama was extremely foolish for his association with a known terrorist.She could have fired him for any reason, or for no reason at all. That was her right. She didn't "abuse her power" -- not that it stops the accusations. Apparently, to some people, driving while intoxicated and threatening the governor's life is perfectly acceptable thing to do for a state trooper.Well now, let's check our books here.....yep...roads to nowhere, a man loses his job because Palin is pissed off because it's her sisters exhusband, and she has the power to cost him his job. Abusing a little power is she?Oh, something about liberating thirty million people.Then we have McCain....he doesn't want to end the war in Iraq. Why?Remember Vietnam? Winning in Vietnam, losing in Washington? We withdrew troops, and communists swept through the country, slaughtering people who opposed them, and took over like we were never there. You think that wouldn't happen in Iraq? History repeats itself.Palin says we would be throwing in the white flag if our toops withdraw. How is that?There were WMDs. Of course, not if you ignore what Saddam was hiding for more than a decade, not if you ignore the convoys leaving the country immediately prior to the invasion, and not if you ignore the WMDs we have actually found. But yeah, other than all that, you might be right.First of all we are in a war that should NEVER have even started. McCain swore there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq....hmmmm...nope. He was wrong.Destroying leadership is winning, sure -- but if we left after that, we'd have to come in and do it again.We did capture AND execute Saddam. There...we won!It's not a war against bin Laden, it's a war on terrorism. And Saddam's Iraq was an ally of terrorism.We were suppose to be looking for BinLaden....remember...the guy that organized 9/11.I dunno -- is the way to do it invading our allies, like Obama wants to do?Now McCain said himself during the last debate that HE knows how to capture BinLaden..He knows where he is...HE knows how to do it. Well then why in the hell has he been keeping this great secret for seven years????I just wanted to make sure this was visible again. The candidate that has NOT advocated war against our allies is "all about war". Funny.McCain is all about war. I don't know about any of you, but I'm tired our troops dying for what? Oh yes...terrorisim that IS NOT in Iraq!McCain wants to give out money for health insurance, and to tax what we pay otherwise. 95% of people will get more money for their healthcare. I bet none of the Obama/Biden commercials you've seen mention that.McCain wants to tax us ...our health insurance for instance and give HUGE tax cuts to the big Corporate Companies and of course the CEO's!
And wait, do you mean that McCain wants to let people KEEP the money they MAKE?!? OH NO!So you think that making production, transportation, and marketing of goods more expensive -- as Obama would do -- wouldn't make goods more expensive?Again...it doesn't trickle down.He mentioned, once, a freeze on new spending. Not only will this save billions upon billions of dollars, it will stop pork and special-interest vote buying.AND he wants to put a Freeze on EVERYTHING except Military and Veterans. Well now, I support our troops completely, and I do wish safety for all and pray they all come home safely....BUT...what about our elderly, Social Security, Medicare......the Republican party has lost a lot of respect from me.Clinton had a "surplus" because he gutted the military and intelligence budgets -- which weakened the country, leaving it open to terrorist attacks -- and fabricated numbers and played shell games with Social Security.And just for the record, when Clinton was in office, we had a surplus of cash......then came the Bush's (both of them!)
Once again, I don't like Bush's fiscal policies. But once again, using Bush to argue against McCain is just silly.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Well that's such a wrong view I don't even know where to start. The fact of the matter is you're American so you hate strong centralized government. But you vote these people in. You don't like it you have a choice. That's democracy... you know, that good old fashioned regime that seems to be forced on a country that doesn't necessarily want it... But still I digress and well I'm always going to have a different opinion because clearly I'm not going to know any better being British and all. So shucks. Guess that was pointless. Oh well. I want to see a return to a Democrat-run Presidency because quite frankly the world, not only America has been abused by the Republicans for a good... oooh 8 years now. Don't get me started on the debt-ridden Reagan years. Because quite frankly it's an argument I will win I assure you. Anyway. Barack is a nice guy, I have to say. I watched the Presidential Debates (the ones so far) and he is coming across very well but still there's something about his aggressiveness regards Pakistan that I find a titch unnerving. Still if it got the job done and you actually got rid of Al-Qaeda without massive repercussions (which I'd doubt) then I would support action. I just don't think it will work.
McCain is too old and I hate Palin with a passion. Bridgitte Bardot wrote a fantastic letter which I'm quoting here:
"By denying the responsibility of man in global warming, by advocating gun rights and making statements that are disconcertingly stupid, you are a disgrace to women and you alone represent a terrible threat, an environmental catastrophe."
Although I think it's perhaps just a smidge too harsh I can't help but agree. If McCain gets in with Palin on the coattails you are basically sacrificing the planet. Now I'm not exactly a liberal green but when Mr. McCain's great plan for renewable energy sourcing is to build and I guess I'm paraphrasing slightly but: "... build a whole stack of nuclear power stations..." I start to ask questions. McCain is a fine Senator, and he's doing well to exploit the fact that he's not a Bush-supporter and was against some of the more extreme policies. But hell it's a massive mistake to carry on with a blatantly military-biased Republican regime. And at 72 can a man his age have the sheer dynamism needed to stabilise a country that is seemingly losing its status as a superpower, and also have the required ability to stabilise an economy that has plunged the US (and yes I don't care how biased this sounds, the UK and perhaps the rest of Europe) into recession? I'm not convinced at all.
Sasquatch, why do you always act surprised when I come across as biased? You should be used to this by now. I've stated over and again that all I care about is the foreign policy of the candidates. I don't want to see America's stance in the world improve because it would be good for you; I want to see your stance improve because it would be good for me. It's selfish, but it's honest, and you feel the same reversed.
As for your enemies not wanting you dead anymore, it could happen. I've thought for a while that one of the primary reasons everyone's been so jittery about your lot for the past few years is because they're scared of you. I know the UK is. To us you seem trigger happy and reckless, armed to the teeth, frightening. There is no reason Iran should detest you; if your response to this is to bring up the Islam-Hates-America thing, if you can bring the Saudis on board, taking the Iranians shouldn't be hard. Acting tough is called for in some situations, but given the current political climate of the world I must say that I don't think this is the time for it. In Bosnia, yes, it was needed. In Iraq, to despose Saddam, yes, and in Afghanistan to fight the terror threat (would be easier to say this if the war's had gone well. My cousin's still in Kandahar, go figure). Surely it would be better, safer and more sensible for America to cultivate friends around the world? The EU manage it and nobody's blown us up yet.
Macedonia and Georgia want McCain because their governments seem to think that he, being more edgy about Russia, would fast-track them into NATO. This is something they are desperate for, since they're so scared of Russia. They want an America that will stand up to Russia, even without grounds to really do so (Georgia started the August war) because they're scared of the motherland. I want an America that will be nice to Russia, because I have to live near them. If they instigate an attack against an EU country or NATO member, sure, go for them. But it's not logical or clever for them to do that, so I can't see it happening. I do not want my country to be part of a theatre of war again.
Also, one of Obama's policies is to strengthen your military. I see the logic in this move, because China are about to overtake you. At last count they had more troops and submarines, and are fast approaching having the largest air force and navy in the world.
Don't be trite. I said he's more likely to start a war over it. Maybe I should've made myself more clear. I'm not ****ing stupid, therefore I don't think anyone would start a war with anyone else because they've just become more powerful. What I mean is, should a situation develop where, in a hypothetical world, China stands as hegemon and America feels they've done wrong, McCain, based on 'Bomb Iran', seems like he'd be more likely to attack as part of America's transition to not being the hegemon anymore. And, now that I've mentioned Bomb Iran (sung to a Beach Boys tune, I do believe) I'll add that a politician of any creed anywhere in the world supporting a vile, disgusting song like that is deplorable. Bombing people should not be something to sing about. They haven't hurt you yet. Pre-emptive war is still a war crime, and perhaps the days are coming when America won't be powerful enough to tell everyone else to obey these rules while they flounce about breaking them anymore.
I said that Palin was less experienced because the only things she's been near she's screwed up royally. Obama may have done 'nothing' (what more can a senator do, and has John McCain done, than vote how they feel will benefit America?) but at least that pile of nothing hasn't created piles of debt, mountains of wasted money (see: bridge/roads to nowhere) and abused power?
Maybe black people really do have a shorter life expectancy. I can't be bothered looking it up. But still, he's not even 45 yet! He is going nowhere at the behest of natural causes. Biden is not as old as McCain, but more importantly, he hasn't had cancer four times.
I still don't think Hillary voters would pick Palin. Palin is not an advocate for women's rights at all; the reason a lot of women favoured Hillary was her favourable stance on women's lib, abortion, etc. Besides which, after her bounce, she's done nothing for McCain, really. HIs campaign shields her from reporters, and when she gets let near them, she comes off with the rot we saw in the Couric interview. She's clearly so far behind the rest in her knowlegde. She may have been on the job longer than Obama, but she seems to have learned almost nothing from it. She's a puppet.
Where have you been? It's been all over the news this week. She has been campaigning all over the place calling him a terrorist! Watch the news!
Because more government control means less prosperity and less freedom. Mainly, less freedom.I don't vote all of them in. And I don't control all of their policies. Unfortunately, too many politicians get elected by promising things to people -- people who would rather vote for their money than work for it.But you vote these people in. You don't like it you have a choice.When did this happen?That's democracy... you know, that good old fashioned regime that seems to be forced on a country that doesn't necessarily want it...What strictly-Republican policies have been bad for America or the world?I want to see a return to a Democrat-run Presidency because quite frankly the world, not only America has been abused by the Republicans for a good... oooh 8 years now.
Honestly, I want to hear it. Tell me what strictly-Republican policies have been bad for America or the world.You think so? If you're so confident that Reagan was such a bad President, you can make a different thread about it.Don't get me started on the debt-ridden Reagan years. Because quite frankly it's an argument I will win I assure you.Being a "nice guy" doesn't help when they're trying to lead a country.Barack is a nice guy, I have to say.Just wondering -- how many have there been so far?I watched the Presidential Debates (the ones so far) and he is coming across very well but still there's something about his aggressiveness regards Pakistan that I find a titch unnerving.Are you serious? McCain is too old? Well Obama is black! And Palin is a woman! And Biden is, umm, ugly! That must mean they would be bad in public office!McCain is too old and I hate Palin with a passion.Calling her a "disgrace to women", a "terrible threat", and "an environmental catastrophe" is "just a smidge too harsh"? I guess comparing her to Hitler would be just a bit, just a minescule amount more harsh?Bridgitte Bardot wrote a fantastic letter which I'm quoting here:
"By denying the responsibility of man in global warming, by advocating gun rights and making statements that are disconcertingly stupid, you are a disgrace to women and you alone represent a terrible threat, an environmental catastrophe."
Although I think it's perhaps just a smidge too harsh I can't help but agree.
Palin doesn't buy into the belief that man is responsible for global warming and supports Constitutional rights and freedom. Those aren't bad things.Nuclear energy is some of the most efficient, cleanest, most cost-effective energy the world knows. Supporting more nuclear energy is not just logical, it's smart.Now I'm not exactly a liberal green but when Mr. McCain's great plan for renewable energy sourcing is to build and I guess I'm paraphrasing slightly but: "... build a whole stack of nuclear power stations..." I start to ask questions.How dare those evil Republicans support the United States military!But hell it's a massive mistake to carry on with a blatantly military-biased Republican regime.
Viewing America from the inside, I care more about the country itself than I care about how other people outside the country see it. Like I said, it's the President's job to take care of the U.S., not to make it more popular.Until the country becomes poor, weak, and Muslim -- and drops all support for our ally, Israel -- some countries in the Middle East will hate us. Until the country becomes poor, weak, and communist, some countries in Asia will hate us.As for your enemies not wanting you dead anymore, it could happen.
Once again -- I look out for the country more than I give a damn about how much other countries like us.
For the same reason, I highly doubt you want your country to become more like the U.S. so we'll like your country more.No reason Iran should detest us? You're right. But they do anyway -- because we're Christian, free, and support the existence of Israel and the lives of Jewish people.There is no reason Iran should detest you; if your response to this is to bring up the Islam-Hates-America thing, if you can bring the Saudis on board, taking the Iranians shouldn't be hard.Sure, there's a time for diplomacy, and there's a time for military use. And even Republicans have proven that they prefer diplomacy to immediate military use.Acting tough is called for in some situations, but given the current political climate of the world I must say that I don't think this is the time for it.Like they're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?Surely it would be better, safer and more sensible for America to cultivate friends around the world?That brings to mind an interesting question -- how long did it take for Russia to get NATO and UN support for their military action? And if they didn't, where was the worldwide outcry about it?Macedonia and Georgia want McCain because their governments seem to think that he, being more edgy about Russia, would fast-track them into NATO.I'd honestly like to know more about that. Do you have any credible sources?... (Georgia started the August war) ...How so?Also, one of Obama's policies is to strengthen your military.They still don't have the technology. They have ICBMs because of Clinton, but they don't have supercarriers, or, say, supersonic stealth aircraft.I see the logic in this move, because China are about to overtake you. At last count they had more troops and submarines, and are fast approaching having the largest air force and navy in the world.
In an all-ground war, China has no competition. But in three-tier combat -- and as far as training and technology go -- it'll take a while for them to get to the level of the United States.You're suggesting that McCain would be more likely to attack an opposing superpower, and basing that suggestion on his joke concerning attacking a present enemy of the United States?What I mean is, should a situation develop where, in a hypothetical world, China stands as hegemon and America feels they've done wrong, McCain, based on 'Bomb Iran', seems like he'd be more likely to attack as part of America's transition to not being the hegemon anymore.C'mon, it was a good song. If you're referring to Barbara Ann, it wasn't a Beach Boys tune, I believe The Regents first performed it. If you're referring to Bomb Iran, that was a parody from 1980.And, now that I've mentioned Bomb Iran (sung to a Beach Boys tune, I do believe) I'll add that a politician of any creed anywhere in the world supporting a vile, disgusting song like that is deplorable.Maybe you can give me some examples of America breaking the rules.Pre-emptive war is still a war crime, and perhaps the days are coming when America won't be powerful enough to tell everyone else to obey these rules while they flounce about breaking them anymore.Your only support for that idea is the debt of Wasilla, which is a result of issues that were VOTED ON BY THE POPULATION. Which means that Palin isn't responsible for it at all.I said that Palin was less experienced because the only things she's been near she's screwed up royally.Well, for one thing ... VOTE. As in, "yes" or "no". If you actually want to learn things about Obama, you should look up how many votes he was in on, how many he was absent from, and how many he simply voted "present" on.... (what more can a senator do, and has John McCain done, than vote how they feel will benefit America?) ...Once again, if you're accusing Palin of the debt, you're wrong. If you're accusing Palin of the bridge to nowhere, you're wrong. And if you're accusing Palin of abusing her power ... how else can I say this ... you're wrong. Oh wait, no, you're right! That's why Palin has been convicted and accusations against her have been supported by facts, instead of devolving into a witch hunt, right?... but at least that pile of nothing hasn't created piles of debt, mountains of wasted money (see: bridge/roads to nowhere) and abused power?You can if you want, but they do. This is somewhat well-known. Just like the fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men do.Maybe black people really do have a shorter life expectancy. I can't be bothered looking it up.Say again, how old is Obama?But still, he's not even 45 yet!And he's much more of a dumbass. He's got more stupid comments than Palin does. If you watched the debate, you would hear him talking about going to a restaurant that has been closed for twenty years, or how the U.S. and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Or maybe you would have seen him reveal his lack of knowledge on the U.S. Constitution, or the 1800+% error on money spent on Afghanistan or Iraq, or his flat-out lies on McCain's record on nuclear test ban treaties.He is going nowhere at the behest of natural causes. Biden is not as old as McCain, but more importantly, he hasn't had cancer four times.Palin supports a child's right to life more than she supports a woman's right to not be inconvenienced by her own irresponsibility. That's a good thing. And of course she won't gather ALL Hillary voters, but there are some that are dumb enough to vote for her for no other reason than that she's a woman -- just like they were dumb enough to have supported Hillary because she's a woman, and just like there are people that are dumb enough to support Obama because he's black, and, yes, people that are dumb enough to hate Obama because he's black.I still don't think Hillary voters would pick Palin. Palin is not an advocate for women's rights at all...I'm willing to bet that you've never seen the entire, non-edited interview, have you? They have shielded her from some reporters and interviewers because they do nothing but attack and berate her. She has every right to refuse questions.HIs campaign shields her from reporters, and when she gets let near them, she comes off with the rot we saw in the Couric interview.
I'm still waiting for somebody to offer actual stupid quotes from Palin. Not quotes that are taken out of context, not quotes that are misunderstood or manipulated, but actual stupid quotes.
Then it should be easy for you to find, shouldn't it? So tell me -- When did Palin Say that Obama was a terrorist?
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
Time to throw in my two cents...m.e.h
QUOTE:
Are you serious? McCain is too old? Well Obama is black! And Palin is a woman! And Biden is, umm, ugly! That must mean they would be bad in public office!Calling her a "disgrace to women", a "terrible threat", and "an environmental catastrophe" is "just a smidge too harsh"? I guess comparing her to Hitler would be just a bit, just a minescule amount more harsh?
Well its clear to see that your Republician, no offense if you are, but meh its obvious. Yes, McCain IS old, in fact he's so old hes at the stage when we have throughts like: "If hes elected, lets hope he doesn't get a suddent Heart Attack and dies on the spot." And the over popular, "ZOMG, he's OLD, you honestly think he won't go senile while running the white house?"
Also: Well Obama is black!
Umm... who cares? My Mom is black. My boyfriend is part black, my aunt is BLACK for God sakes! Who cares? Is being black really that bad? Also when you said Blacks have lower life expectnacy, where is the source of this infomation?
Let me share with you some infomation: My great grandmother used to smoke alot even when she was old. And you know? She lived to be 102, even through she was smoking. So this infomation DOES NOT Apply to Every Black American! This is pure statistic, probarly from a study.
Yes, smoking is bad, in fact I've never smoked and NEVER will, nor drink, because I want to live a good long "healthy" life. Smoking is bad for everyone, and it can lower life expectnacy but this I don't think just applies to blacks it applies to everyone. Also, unlike McCain, Obama isn't 72, he isn't even 45 yet, like Gov. said, he STILL has ALOT of life in him. Age can play a factor in these kinds of elections, this being one of the most important elections in the country.
QUOTE:
I guess comparing her to Hitler would be just a bit, just a minescule amount more harsh?
*Ahem* Don't get me started on Hitler XD. *Hitler is back! Run Away! Ahhh* No, seriously, Hitler WAS a dictator, he was what Saddam wished he could be, a evil nutcase. Palin can turn out to be just like him, but not in the overly evil sense, she'll never be what Hitler was...I hope not. I dislike Palin's views, mainly one of which is she even if she's elected and if she becomes President if McCain kicks the bucket, she still wouldn't support Gay Marriage. That's what I really care about atm. I want a president that can overcome and get rid of the old ways and usher in CHANGE. McCain can't offer that, especially not for gays. (looks at Palin when saying that). Palin doesn't support a woman's right to choose. She's against abortion & Stim Cell Research. Some women should have the right to choose between them, that is a woman's right, and Palin doesn't support women's rights, nor does McCain.
I'm not big on Politics, and I'd rather stay away from the subject, but I feel that Obama can bring about some relieve of change that McCain/Palin wouldn't be able to provide. Also:
And Biden is, umm, ugly!
Umm...isn't this harsh in itself? LOL
Last edited by Phantom; 10-09-2008 at 07:16 PM.
Originally Posted by Hellfire
Who the hell are you? .... .... .... ....well, good luck with that.
XD. This quote screams post me in your sig!
Check out my FFVII Walkthrough, by first EVER walkthrough! I'm PhantomTFF on IGN and Tairyo on Gamefaqs.
http://faqs.ign.com/articles/946/946197p1.html
Courtesy of IGN and Gamefaqs. ^^
Yugioh and Yugioh GX Fanboy <---
Check out my Youtube Homepage!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Made4542
If you like homemade Final Fantasy and Pokemon walkthrough vids with a unique flair, be sure to Subscribe to Made4542 (Me).
Once again, I am not a Republican. I'm pretty sure I've said this before.
Just because I defend Republicans against baseless, ignorant attacks doesn't mean I'm a Republican, myself.This isn't a serious argument, is it? See below.Yes, McCain IS old, in fact he's so old hes at the stage when we have throughts like: "If hes elected, lets hope he doesn't get a suddent Heart Attack and dies on the spot." And the over popular, "ZOMG, he's OLD, you honestly think he won't go senile while running the white house?"But, but, but, but, but, but he's black! In fact, he's so black, he's at the stage when we have thoughts like: "If he's elected, let's hope he doesn't waste our money on crack cocaine and hookers!" And the ever popular, "ZOMG, he's BLACK, you honestly think he won't go crazy and start 'busting caps' while running the White House?"
Also: Well Obama is black!
Umm... who cares?
Now, do you see how foolish that was?Well, besides common sense ... Here. Is that enough sources?Also when you said Blacks have lower life expectnacy, where is the source of this infomation?And apparently, statistics and studies mean absolutely nothing, right? Probarly, anyway.Let me share with you some infomation: My great grandmother used to smoke alot even when she was old. And you know? She lived to be 102, even through she was smoking. So this infomation DOES NOT Apply to Every Black American! This is pure statistic, probarly from a study.
Anyway, no, nothing applies to EVERYBODY. Everything is general. You'll always have people that defy the statistics. My grandparents smoked like chimneys since they were teenagers, and my grandfather is incredibly healthy. That doesn't mean that everybody that smokes three packs a day for seventy years fares so well.Amazingly enough, things that apply to everyone also apply to blacks! Funny how that works, ain't it?Smoking is bad for everyone, and it can lower life expectnacy but this I don't think just applies to blacks it applies to everyone.Would somebody please look up how old Barack Obama really is?Also, unlike McCain, Obama isn't 72, he isn't even 45 yet, like Gov. said, he STILL has ALOT of life in him.One of the most ... there are more important elections than President?Age can play a factor in these kinds of elections, this being one of the most important elections in the country.
Age isn't a factor. Sex isn't a factor. Race isn't a factor. Issues are a factor. Experience is a factor.She supports the same rights for homosexuals that Obama does. Where have you called Obama out on this?I dislike Palin's views, mainly one of which is she even if she's elected and if she becomes President if McCain kicks the bucket, she still wouldn't support Gay Marriage.You don't care about the economy, or the military, or the Constitution ... but you care about homosexual rights, and that's it?That's what I really care about atm.And Obama's record of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING gives you the impression you can trust him to do, well, something?I want a president that can overcome and get rid of the old ways and usher in CHANGE.She values the life of children over the convenience of irresponsible women? Oh no!Palin doesn't support a woman's right to choose.While "stim cell research" doesn't exist, I assume you mean stem cell research, which Sarah Palin is not against. She is against the use of embryonic stem cells, which are -- obviously -- from embryos. People against abortion are also against embryonic stem cells used in research. Instead, the myriad other types of stem cells can be used in research.She's against abortion & Stim Cell Research.
Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.
Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
thanks to Google maps Election 08 sectionBarack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii to Barack Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya) and Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas)
Elections '08 Map Gallery
Now, I'm no mathematician, but simple subtraction will help us to lean that Obama is 47.
While I'm not a fan of either candidate, I'm much more inclined to vote McCain. Obama is far too inexperienced and has never made a critical decision in his political career. (Okay, other than deciding to run for President.) Every major vote that he was able to vote on either dealt with him not being around or abstaining. This, to me shows his unwillingness to make a tough decision. Either that, or he didn't want to have it on record that he voted one way or another for something potentially controversial. A leader has to be able to make a decision, whether or not he might look bad for it. I respect someone who might make a wrong decision and can admit that, rather than someone who refuses to make any.
I also don't agree with his idea of thinking that we can all just get along with a clean slate. I've learned two things better than anything, and they're that history repeats itself and people don't forget. Even if we shake hands with the leaders of nations that pose a severe threat, you have to realize that there's always the knife behind the back in the other hand.
In this world of terrorism and the like, I feel like it's important to have someone with the knowledge and experience of the military to be the Commander in Chief. We went into Iraq and got Saddam. We're fairly well on our way into handing over the remaining provinces over to the Iraqis. If I'm not mistaken, 11 of 17 provinces are in the hands of the Iraqi government, which is actually a great sign to a free and liberated Iraq.
I think this election will ultimately be decided by people who will be voting for no other reason, other than novelty. People who have never had the desire to vote will vote for the candidate of their choice because of gender or skin color. I'm not voting for McCain because he's white, nor am I not voting for Obama because he's black. I'm voting the way I am because McCain understands what's good and right for this country, while Obama is as close to a socialist as you can get, and still remain within party lines. And socialism has no place in America.
oh and THIS
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...arch-with.html
Oh and this is what happens with socialism and TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. We become a nanny state and have to abide by their inane rules.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ders-told.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ains-salt.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/61813/
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/...college-chiefs
I can go on
Last edited by Pete; 10-10-2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason: added shit
SOLDIERcHoSeNCrao Porr Cock8- Rebels, Rogues and Sworn Brothers
I have to be in class in less than a half hour, so while this is short I might try to add more later...
McCain is old, way old and out of touch with what America needs. He's going to help the rich get richer and the only reason he ever talks of "Main Street" is because Obama is doing the same. He'll continue the "war" in Iraq and it's hard to say that he won't seriously consider doing the same with Iran. His "maverick" nature is exactly the sort of thing we really don't need right now. Not to mention that his foreign policy, if he even has one, is the typical GOP approach of "America is always right, we own all".
Not going to lie, I kinda like Palin. She knows about energy, which is something we really need to work on. I like the fact that she's from a small town, makes me feel like us small towners have a place in government. That aside, I don't think I'd feel too good with her taking her crash course in big time politics in the VP spot. Would I vote for a ticket with her on it in about four, eight years? Sure, but now's not the time for her to learn on the go, we need solutions.
I hate Barack Obama, what's worse is that I really don't have a great reason for such hatred. He just comes off as a liar and throws around words like "Hope" and "Change", yet never really explains HOW he's going to change things. I'm thrilled that a candidate of color is in the race, shows progression that this country lacks but he just irks me. Plus, his comment on Chavez being the head of a rogue state was waaaayyy off base.
Biden has a lot of foreign policy time, so I'm a fan of his. But eh, it's Delaware haha.
I don't know...I don't see anyone who wins making much change or good for us or the world.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks