PDA

View Full Version : Obama or the Chick?



Mikey
01-30-2008, 09:27 PM
who would u pick?

LitKey
01-30-2008, 09:31 PM
neither

Repeat
01-30-2008, 09:53 PM
For me that choice would be chosing the lesser of two evils. I really can't stand Hillary at all (her stances on tons of stuff, and just her personality/image in general) and I'm not a big fan of Obama because he wants to make crazy gun laws. I like to be able to have my guns.

My ideal candidate would be a libertarian. I don't want the government putting their icky little hands into my business.


Maybe Santa. He might be good.

Slavic
01-30-2008, 10:04 PM
I'm voting for Ron Paul because there are no Socialists on the ballet this year.

Red
01-30-2008, 10:15 PM
Too bad the Prince of Darkness isn't running.

Omega
01-30-2008, 10:40 PM
It's sad that Ron Paul is such an underdog...stupid fking people don't realize that he's what we need right now. Fox and other shit biased media can go to hell for excluding Ron Paul out of interviews/debates/other types of coverage.


Obama > Hillary anyday though, if it comes to that.

phatman76
01-30-2008, 11:08 PM
I didn't no so many people on this forum on this forum were libertarians... Anyways, Hillary is the lesser of two evils. She and her husband are much closer to the center on a lot of issues like war and gun control. It puts a sour taste in my mouth to even consider another clinton presidency, but she is a better option than obama.

It's all about Romney, turn the government into a freakin' business...

Repeat
01-30-2008, 11:15 PM
It's sad that Ron Paul is such an underdog...stupid fking people don't realize that he's what we need right now. Fox and other shit biased media can go to hell for excluding Ron Paul out of interviews/debates/other types of coverage.


Obama > Hillary anyday though, if it comes to that.


Take those away and that leaves us with...oh wait, no media.


Silly media. It's a bitch.

Zero001
01-31-2008, 01:08 AM
Media or not Ron Paul didn't stand a very good chance. When I first saw one of his YouTube video, I'll admit it caught my attention. I was very moved and even became a fan, but the more I looked into it the more I was turned away. If he was less extreme he would've won my vote, but thats not the case. I won't go into further detail here, you'll have to start a new thread.

Like most of you, this election leaves me with a feeling of "who do I dislike the least".

Emma
01-31-2008, 01:43 AM
Ron Paul is a good person, a good talker, and has the ability to get his point across, and has an honest attitude. the problem is simply that most people dont agree with his points.

Red
01-31-2008, 01:55 AM
They all suck asss

*extra S for emphasis*

Blank
01-31-2008, 10:37 AM
I think both parties have weak condidates. But to stay on topic of this thread, I would have to choose Obama. Although Senators historically make poor presidents, this fact is negated as they are both senators.


She and her husband are much closer to the center on a lot of issues like war and gun control.

This is an election year. Check her history, its quite alarming. I have a book that I am reading. "Do as I Say, (Not As I Do)", by Peter Schweizer. This book presents what various advocates and politicians tell us to do versus how they conduct their own personal lives. Very interesting.

Her resume includes a long history of political credentials. This is an X as well. She owes a lot of favors, to a lot of people, for her campaign and also for her husband.

One thing that I have noticed is that she doesn't answer the question that is asked.

I have to paraphrase.

Example: "Have you forgiven Bill for what he did with Monica Lewenski ?"
Answer: "For alot of women it is hard to forgive their husband for their indescretions. The important that we work thru our issues."

I thought this was a yes or no question. If she didn't want to answer the question, then she should have said it was inappropriate.

This appears to be minor, but it is not. This is the way most politicians talk. No definite answer, and no definite course of action. Example, all last year we heard that the Democratic contenders for the Senate and House seats wanted out troops out of the Middle East. Well, the Senate and House are now controlled by the Democrates and for some reason we are still in Iraq and Afganistan.

The President can send us to war, but the Congress can stop all spending in relation to a war. I have heard of no resolution or bill that withdraws troops since the election last year.

Red
01-31-2008, 10:46 AM
This is an election year. Check her history, its quite alarming. I have a book that I am reading. "Do as I Say, (Not As I Do)", by Peter Schweizer. This book presents what various advocates and politicians tell us to do versus how they conduct their own personal lives. Very interesting.



Great book, my father gave it to me to read.

Your other points are spot on too, she's as evasive as here husband was.

The current Pelosi congress talked a big game but failed to deliver. Big surprise.

Slavic
01-31-2008, 11:55 AM
I honestly don't care who I vote for as long as it is not a democrat or a republican. Both of those parties are to centrists, and right now our country needs a drastic change. It is almost certain that Ron Paul is not going to win but i'm still going to vote for him. The more votes a 3rd Party gets, the more well-known they become in the American political sphere. If Ron Paul gets enough votes to shock the establishment, then maybe they will throw some coverage on him.

Italian Jew
01-31-2008, 01:59 PM
better book is Stephen Colbert's I am America (and So Can You!)...great read

As good as America the Book!

Never leave home without it

raven maniac
01-31-2008, 03:17 PM
P.S. Over here we don't consider Iraq or Afghanistan a war; it's an insurgency uprising. As far as I'm concerned, our most recent war was Falkland Islands -- at least they required courage and battle-plans, operations and tactics. In a war, governments communicate. What's happening now is a free-for-all in a foreign country we shouldn't be wasting the British Army in.

IN AMERICA WE CALL THIS A BATTLE ROYALE!!!!! ;) :wacko:

Omega
01-31-2008, 04:02 PM
I honestly don't care who I vote for as long as it is not a democrat or a republican. Both of those parties are to centrists, and right now our country needs a drastic change. It is almost certain that Ron Paul is not going to win but i'm still going to vote for him. The more votes a 3rd Party gets, the more well-known they become in the American political sphere. If Ron Paul gets enough votes to shock the establishment, then maybe they will throw some coverage on him.

Ron Paul is a republican.

Also if you're going to vote for a third party, - don't bother. How many libertarian/left wing presidents have we had so far? Nada. It's a waste of a vote.

As someone said, this election is about who you hate the least, - that's who you should vote for. All the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul (who, I hate to admit, has very little chance) are pretty poor choices.

EvInReaLife
01-31-2008, 04:19 PM
Maybe Santa. He might be good.

Santa's ideals don't match mine.

Im going with the easter bunny



http://img.printfection.com/14/52563/RdAjI.jpg
NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

phatman76
01-31-2008, 05:14 PM
Ron Paul is a republican.

Also if you're going to vote for a third party, - don't bother. How many libertarian/left wing presidents have we had so far? Nada. It's a waste of a vote.



yeah, Paul is running for the republican nomination. But, third parties have won in the past. Lincoln's republicans began as a third party, now they are one of the big two, same thing happened with the Jacksonian democrats earlier. America isn't due for a party realignment yet, but it will happen.

Also, libertarianism is a very iffy thing, it could never happen in the USA now. Like it or not, the USA is the single global superpower right now, and retreating into an individualistic, isolationist shell will just hurt it. There is a reason the USA has lots of treaties and lots of allies, because it needs them to survive in this harsh world. Paul is smart fiscally, but as far as foreign policy is concerned I wouldn't trust him farther than I can throw him.

raven maniac
01-31-2008, 05:23 PM
Santa's ideals don't match mine.

Im going with the easter bunny



http://img.printfection.com/14/52563/RdAjI.jpg
NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!

Easter Bunny has my vote.

tg-TwaxTPSs

LitKey
01-31-2008, 06:28 PM
Also, libertarianism is a very iffy thing, it could never happen in the USA now. Like it or not, the USA is the single global superpower right now, and retreating into an individualistic, isolationist shell will just hurt it. There is a reason the USA has lots of treaties and lots of allies, because it needs them to survive in this harsh world. Paul is smart fiscally, but as far as foreign policy is concerned I wouldn't trust him farther than I can throw him.

Agreed

Repeat
01-31-2008, 06:36 PM
By the way, I don't think this topic should be called "Obama or the Chick?"

I hardly think she's a 'chick'. I'd say more like a 'power bitch (from hell)'

Blank
01-31-2008, 07:01 PM
I hardly think she's a 'chick'

"Thats a man, man!" *In my best Austin Powers voice*

Omega
01-31-2008, 10:34 PM
the USA is the single global superpower right now.

USA is being stripped of the title more and more with each passing day. China will claim it soon, if it hasn't already.

broncoty
01-31-2008, 10:36 PM
USA is being stripped of the title more and more with each passing day. China will claim it soon, if it hasn't already.

i still fail to see how that is happening, I am thinking of starting a topic.

Zero001
01-31-2008, 10:38 PM
USA is being stripped of the title more and more with each passing day. China will claim it soon, if it hasn't already.
The U.S is in a bit of a recession, but that's nothing new in this country. It might share the title of "SuperPower", but there's no way it's going to loose it that easily.

Omega
01-31-2008, 11:37 PM
China is the world's largest exporting country with a booming economy. They export so much around the world that it's getting rid of competition, which is the backbone of the U.S. economy. Countries around the world are reluctant in investing in the US due to the poor shape of the dollar. People here at home don't spend or invest as much as they used to. No investing = no growth.

Take cars for example. Who the fuck buys a ford anymore? Unless you're a redneck or someone who likes wasting money on gas - you'll go for that Honda or Toyota and not a domestic brand.


With globalisation being so dominant in today's world, when a large economy such as the US takes a hit, others feel the blow and usually follow the same path. China, on the other hand, is unaffected, still growing at an unbelievable rate.

JufzjodoAM4


And zero, I agree that recessions are a natural part in an economy, but the thing is, China's not going to sleep during this period of time. It's going to take advantage of this and gain more ground than ever and thus, successfully emerge as the leading superpower in the world.

And I'm sure someone's gonna say something about the US military being the best in the world. Well guess what drives a nation's military capability - it's the status of the economy. Put two and two together...ding ding ding!

Articles of interest:
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/06/0905/art1.html
http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=30
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0315-24.htm

phatman76
01-31-2008, 11:43 PM
Omega, no matter how many cars China makes or how much coal it burns it will never have the military might of the United States.

Chinese carrier fleets: Zero

USA carrier fleets: 11

One of our tanks could take 20 of theirs, and the same goes for our fighter jets. 5,000 nukes also do a lot of talking.

Omega, Army's don't disappear, and I'm sure the USA's position of power will be secure for a very long time.

LitKey
01-31-2008, 11:48 PM
ZOMGZ, the sky is falling! :chatterbox:

Omega
01-31-2008, 11:55 PM
5,000 nukes also do a lot of talking.


All it takes is one.

phatman76
01-31-2008, 11:57 PM
That's evading the point Omega, the USA will not go quietly into the night

Omega
01-31-2008, 11:58 PM
That's evading the point Omega, the USA will not go quietly into the night

And the Chinese sun is shining at its brightest.

LitKey
02-01-2008, 12:00 AM
I'm totally moving to China then.

Totally.

Omega
02-01-2008, 12:02 AM
I'm totally moving to China then.

Totally.

Not so fast, they've already got a population that's four times that of the U.S.
You may have to prove yourself worthy first.

Slavic
02-01-2008, 12:03 AM
Umm well just to throw this out there. There really shouldn't be any arguments about whose military is better, because China and the US have gotten to the point that any conflict between the two will bring about total destruction. Picture what could of happened during the cold war. Now throw in China instead of the USSR. No war will ever happen.

Red
02-01-2008, 12:07 AM
I would move to china if my income was the same of that in the US or higher. And I'd move to Shanghai or Hong Kong. Beijing is ghetto.

LitKey
02-01-2008, 12:22 AM
Hong Kong FTW

Too bad the British gave it to the Chinese

Red
02-01-2008, 12:46 AM
Hong Kong FTW

Too bad the British gave it to the Chinese

For real

phatman76
02-01-2008, 01:11 AM
well, they did use up their lease.

Zero001
02-01-2008, 11:02 AM
What Red, Likey, and I are trying to say is that there's no need to panic and move to China just because their economy is booming and the U.S.A isn't doing so hot. It may well be their turn. The U.S economy picked up in the 90's because of the advances in technology. The internet became widely available, computers became faster and more affordable, smaller business' where able to grow off of it, and there was a little thing called the dot-com bubble. When that went down the U.S economy started to slide. It's not entirely Bush's fault that the economy isn't as great, but he certainly did not help it by going out and spending ridiculous amounts of money (The Democratic Congress that's currently approving his policies left and right didn't help either).

Red
02-01-2008, 11:14 AM
^ what he said.


Congress of change, rofl.

Omega
02-01-2008, 01:45 PM
What Red, Likey, and I are trying to say is that there's no need to panic and move to China just because their economy is booming and the U.S.A isn't doing so hot. It may well be their turn. The U.S economy picked up in the 90's because of the advances in technology. The internet became widely available, computers became faster and more affordable, smaller business' where able to grow off of it, and there was a little thing called the dot-com bubble. When that went down the U.S economy started to slide. It's not entirely Bush's fault that the economy isn't as great, but he certainly did not help it by going out and spending ridiculous amounts of money (The Democratic Congress that's currently approving his policies left and right didn't help either).


When did I say that anyone should move to China? My posts were to inform those who are ignorant of the fact that the godly, almighty, invincible USofA isn't what it used to be anymore in the economical world scene.

Zero001
02-01-2008, 02:17 PM
When did I say that anyone should move to China? My posts were to inform those who are ignorant of the fact that the godly, almighty, invincible USofA isn't what it used to be anymore in the economical world scene.

I never said that you said that we need to move to China. Just trying to say that there's no need to panic and it's not that big of a deal if China's economy surpasses the U.S.A's. The U.S can hold it's own. I don't think anyone has posted anything as ignorant as to suggest that the U.S is "godly, almighty, invincible", but I understand that there are people out there the think that and you want to get that out.

Kennith
02-01-2008, 04:18 PM
I think I might go vote for Ron Paul.

Blank
02-01-2008, 04:20 PM
Anyways.........What do you guys think of Obama?

matt 187
02-01-2008, 06:08 PM
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k262/RayJuhls/obama.gif

broncoty
02-01-2008, 06:57 PM
omega do you even live in America?

plus your sources consist of a biased socialist website, an article written by a guy with no degree, and my god a guy that actually has a degree but calls America today imperialistic...........

Zero001
02-01-2008, 08:47 PM
Just to get back on topic.... From what I've been researching Obama and Hillary's campaigns are at least 90% (probably closer than that) the same. It's just that they present themselves differently. I honestly don't think there's a great difference between their policies. If they would've teamed up instead of bashing each other, they would've made the Democrats a shoe in on this election. Instead of trying to present their strong points, they're taking hits on each other and it's given the Republicans the window they need.

Omega
02-01-2008, 09:14 PM
omega do you even live in America?

plus your sources consist of a biased socialist website, an article written by a guy with no degree, and my god a guy that actually has a degree but calls America today imperialistic...........

oh my god... and do you think mainstream media is more credible? You must be a fan of Fox News.

I just picked the top few articles that conveyed my points well and linked to them. You want a "plausible" source? Here (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/29/eyeonchina.superpower/index.html) , surely written by Joe Harvard himself, PH.D.

Come on man, wake up to current events. Turn on the news, be it Fox, - you'll still hear about it. And yes I am currently living in the US, although I'm not a citizen quite yet even though I'm legible to attain citizenship, which I will be doing very soon.

Red
02-02-2008, 07:40 AM
omega do you even live in America?

plus your sources consist of a biased socialist website, an article written by a guy with no degree, and my god a guy that actually has a degree but calls America today imperialistic...........

self-loathing and socialism are trendy

I refer to it as the "Michael Moore" generation.

Omega
02-02-2008, 11:30 AM
self-loathing and socialism are trendy

I refer to it as the "Michael Moore" generation.

I've lived in Europe most of my life. I'm not self-loathing... I don't even consider myself an American (which I'm not, technically). Coming from half across the globe, you get the benefit of seeing things from different perspectives, and it's good to question things, especially in a time like this. Guess what's on every presidential candidates' logo - the word "change." Questioning is the catalyst to change, and I'm damn well going to do it as long as I have freedom of speech.

Red
02-03-2008, 11:31 PM
I didn't mean self-loathing of yourself as an individual, but rather people loathing the country they reside in.

Note: I lived the first 18 years of my life overseas until I came here for college, so I have that whole "foreign perspective" shit going on too.

Modgers1
02-03-2008, 11:40 PM
My ideal candidate would be someone who just did Barrel Rolls to solve the country's problems.

I wonder if there's someone out there like that...

phatman76
02-03-2008, 11:49 PM
self-loathing and socialism are trendy

I refer to it as the "Michael Moore" generation.

Agreed, people think that because the USA is basically the most powerful (Q.E.D. one of the best) country in the world, we should feel bad about ourselves.

Omega
02-03-2008, 11:50 PM
I didn't mean self-loathing of yourself as an individual, but rather people loathing the country they reside in.



They have some good reasons to do so.

LegalSmash
02-05-2008, 05:11 PM
Yes. Apparently eating and drinking sanitary food, Sleeping at night, working a job at a decent wage/salary and not having (too many) terror bombers is reason to be emo about yourself in the political arena.

As for the title topic, I think Obama would be a better choice than the hill-dog, every day of the week. My beef with him is that he lacks experience, which may play well for him as he wont come off as a run-of-the-mill candidate, but his policies are not well documented, nor is a voting record, and hes basically running on the "Im new, I'm young, I remind you of a minority kennedy, and I'm allegedly known to restore hope to the tattered middle/lower class".

Im sorry, but I still have relatives that fought at and recall the bay of pigs... I dont like or trust any kennedy. That comparison to him really kills his allure for me...

I am not going to delude myself into thinking that voting for wayne brady is going to make the world all good... what I will say though, is that if a dem WAS to win, and it was one of these two, it would be less damaging to the union if it was him, rather than someone who has a history, and a checkered one at that.

I am mad that it appears that the election will be a turkey shoot for the dems... The republican party has not put a viable candidate together yet, with enough appeal to cover the entire republican party's range of voters... which is difficult without sounding like a televangelist for at least a PART of the election.

Repeat
08-27-2008, 07:45 AM
Well, I guess it turned out to be Obama.

P.S. Adding pertinent subject matter, HOOO!!!!

See! You're learning! Well done!

LegalSmash
08-27-2008, 11:19 AM
Did anyone see Hilary's supporting cast of bulldykes?

Slavic
08-27-2008, 09:58 PM
I love how Hilary supporters claim that Obama has split the Democratic Party's union; but then decide they are going to go against Clinton's call to support Obama and vote for McCain.