PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Candidates


Geck-o-Lizard
05-02-08, 19:35
Requested by Mad Tony.

PARANOIA
05-02-08, 19:39
Why no third-party candidate?

Geck-o-Lizard
05-02-08, 19:40
Because I have no idea who they are? :p You want a poll that lists all possible candidates, send the list of them to me and I'll add them... tho I'd really rather be playing COD4 right now.

Mad Tony
05-02-08, 19:45
Hmm... I'm undecided on which Republican candidate I like the most. I'll research into their policies a bit more then make my decision.

tlr online
05-02-08, 19:45
... tho I'd really rather be playing COD4 right now.
U like fishing games?

scion05
05-02-08, 19:47
One thing I don't understand is why do they have
more than 1 person representing each party... I
find that really weird, it's not a criticism, just something
I don't understand :p

Tina Croft
05-02-08, 19:50
Hillary! :D
women come to power.
she could make a coffee party then with Angela Merkel :p

myrmaad
05-02-08, 19:52
One thing I don't understand is why do they have
more than 1 person representing each party... I
find that really weird, it's not a criticism, just something
I don't understand :p

We're in the process of elimination. By the time we have our General Election in November, there will be one candidate per major party. The outcome of the preliminaries (of which, today is one) will help to decide who the parties will choose as The Candidate to run in November.

PARANOIA
05-02-08, 19:52
I say to hell with the presidency and "representatives." No candidate represents my views. Instead, let's directly elect our laws and enact the single transferable vote.

scion05
05-02-08, 19:54
We're in the process of elimination. By the time we have our General Election in November, there will be one candidate per major party. The outcome of the preliminaries (of which, today is one) will help to decide who the parties will choose as The Candidate to run in November.


Oooooh, thanks very much :hug:

Eddie Haskell
05-02-08, 20:01
Hmm... I'm undecided on which Republican candidate I like the most. I'll research into their policies a bit more then make my decision.

No research needed. If you want a President who is bought and paid for by Big Business than vote for any one of them (Ron Paul is a Libertarian really). Although if you have to vote for a conservative, vote for McCain. At least he has integrity and the ability to bridge the partisan divide.

Mad Tony
05-02-08, 20:03
I've now decided to support Mike Huckabee :)

Cochrane
05-02-08, 20:04
Obama. If Hillary gets the nomination instead then I'd transfer my allegiance to her.

Eddie Haskell
05-02-08, 20:05
I've now decided to support Mike Huckabee :)

He doesn't even believe in evolution. And he wants to be President?

PARANOIA
05-02-08, 20:06
No research needed. If you want a President who is bought and paid for by Big Business than vote for any one of them (Ron Paul is a Libertarian really). Although if you have to vote for a conservative, vote for McCain. At least he has integrity and the ability to bridge the partisan divide.

On the other hand, if you want a vampire that's going to drink your taxpayer dollars and distribute it to welfare lardasses for the sake of "national healthcare," and if you want your taxes themselves to go through the roof, vote for a Democrat. Specifically, Barack Obama.

Mad Tony
05-02-08, 20:08
He doesn't even believe in evolution. And he wants to be President?What's wrong with that? More to the point, why should that matter even though it has nothing with his political skills?

PARANOIA
05-02-08, 20:08
He doesn't even believe in evolution. And he wants to be President?

Obama doesn't believe in God. Why should he be in charge of the highest office of the United States?

VonCroy360
05-02-08, 20:08
Btw, I just found this (http://glassbooth.org/) site today, and it is quite interesting. If you think about what you want and what are your priorities, it easily directs you to the candidate that would represent your interests the best.

The site showed me my selections are similar to Mike Gravel's (who doesn't really have any real chance), and I always liked Edwards till his withdrawal. My next choice would be Clinton, and I'd vote for her if I was in the position to do so.

:)

Eddie Haskell
05-02-08, 20:09
On the other hand, if you want a vampire that's going to drink your taxpayer dollars and distribute it to welfare lardasses for the sake of "national healthcare," and if you want your taxes themselves to go through the roof, vote for a Democrat. Specifically, Barack Obama.

I like lardasses! I am getting to be one myself, and rather quickly with my lack of exercise these days. But seriously, Republicans are not in a position to debate this issue seriously. The proof is in the pudding, the situation right now for instance.

Obama doesn't believe in God. Why should he be in charge of the highest office of the United States?

Now you're just making things up. C'mon PARANOIA, don't get desperate on me. :)

PARANOIA
05-02-08, 20:12
I like lardasses! I am getting to be one myself, and rather quickly with my lack of exercise these days. But seriously, Republicans are not in a position to debate this issue seriously. The proof is in the pudding, the situation right now for instance.

Why are they not in a position to debate this issue seriously?

Now you're just making things up. C'mon PARANOIA, don't get desperate on me. :)

You're the one who used the lowest form of argument, the belief in evolution, as a reason not to elect Huckabee.

Mad Tony
05-02-08, 20:12
Btw, I just found this (http://glassbooth.org/) site today, and it is quite interesting. If you think about what you want and what are your priorities, it easily directs you to the candidate that would represent your interests the best.

The site showed me my selections are similar to Mike Gravel's (who doesn't really have any real chance), and I always liked Edwards till his withdrawal. My next choice would be Clinton, and I'd vote for her if I was in the position to do so.

:)Nice quiz. I just took it and it recommended me Mike Huckabee.

God Horus
05-02-08, 20:17
Voted Hilary Clinton :wve:

Indiana Croft
05-02-08, 20:18
Honestly, I didn't care for Hilary at all during the beginning of her campaign. But now, I kinda like her. She kinda forced me over to the darkside at the caucus. But I just don't think Barak Obama has enough experience. However, I do admire his campaign system. He focuses on what he will do right instead of what his opponents will do wrong, at least most of the time. I really don't like ANY of the Republican Candidates. They have no wow factor. Their political ambititions are typical, been promised before and have been left unaccomplished. I forget who said this, I think it might have been Huckabee, but he said he wanted to change the CONSTITUTION under the name of the lord! That's a backhand to what America stands for! Freedom of religion, people! And there's no mentioning the damage they'd do to the gay community, and they'd be doing witch hunts on abortionists! The other republican viewpoints are based on his endorsers, which ****es me off because if you want to be president, you need to have your own opinions and back them up! So for right now, It's between Hilary and Barak for me. I won't vote yet until I'm sure.

Anubis_AF
05-02-08, 20:19
Hillary & McCain for me.

Eddie Haskell
05-02-08, 20:19
Why are they not in a position to debate this issue seriously?



You're the one who used the lowest form of argument, the belief in evolution, as a reason not to elect Huckabee.

The Republicans drove up the national debt when they were in power, this needs to be paid for either now or later. They try and use all kinds of convoluted logic to try and alter this fact or change the debate. Tax cuts will only increase the debt, particularly when our (Republican) President pushes an extremely bloated budget that only increases this debt. So they deceive themselves and try and do the same to the people. But we are not buying that anymore, either we pay for it or we don't get it. No more credit.

As far as Huckabee is concerned, he said it himself. And this type of statement goes to the heart of the man. Is he a religious nut? Is he anti-science? I must say however, if it weren't for this statement and the doubt that it gives me about him I would find him a good Republican choice. he is quite likable.

USP
05-02-08, 20:21
Ron Paul

That test is retarded. It gave me 75 percent RP, 71 percent Obama.
Said we were similar on taxes, civil liberties, economics, and foreign policy

Eddie Haskell
05-02-08, 20:31
Ron Paul

That test is retarded. It gave me 75 percent RP, 71 percent Obama.
Said we were similar on taxes, civil liberties, economics, and foreign policy

No, you just found out what you really want...;)

USP
05-02-08, 20:34
Ah, you are right
I am glad this test has opened my eyes

hera7days
05-02-08, 20:34
Btw, I just found this (http://glassbooth.org/) site today, and it is quite interesting. If you think about what you want and what are your priorities, it easily directs you to the candidate that would represent your interests the best.

The site showed me my selections are similar to Mike Gravel's (who doesn't really have any real chance), and I always liked Edwards till his withdrawal. My next choice would be Clinton, and I'd vote for her if I was in the position to do so.

:)

I got Gravel, too. Interesting quiz; I liked how it was set up. There was one question I didn't like, one that asked if I supported civil unions for gay couples. And I'm like, in general or as opposed to gay marriage? So I voted in the middle for that one because I didn't know what else to do.

For this poll I picked Clinton, but I'd be just as happy with Obama.

Cochrane
05-02-08, 20:38
Who the hell is Mike Gravel? Never ever heard of him, but that test gave him as my most likely candidate, too (followed by Hillary and Obama, practically head-to-head). Of course, such tests are always biased one way or another. This one didn't talk about Guantanamo, for example.

As for Huckabee: Is someone who outright rejects science qualified to lead one of the world's most technologically advanced nations? In my opinion, no, but his actual quotes sound if he's just trying to capture votes from the religious nuts, not so much troubling. What really worries me is if he puts the bible above the US constitution, and wants to change the latter to better reflect the former. That mustn't happen in a secular, or for that matter, any free country, and for this reason I think he is not qualified to be president.

Eddie Haskell
05-02-08, 20:38
I got Obama 80%, with Hillary at 79% in this quiz. And as I have said, either one would be ok. But Obama has the edge in the uniter category, whereas a President Hillary will simply cause the Republicans to battle her at every opportunity. Just because they don't like her and their base feels the same way.

Indiana Croft
05-02-08, 20:39
Who the hell is Mike Gravel? Never ever heard of him, but that test gave him as my most likely candidate, too (followed by Hillary and Obama, practically head-to-head). Of course, such tests are always biased one way or another. This one didn't talk about Guantanamo, for example.

As for Huckabee: Is someone who outright rejects science qualified to lead one of the world's most technologically advanced nations? In my opinion, no, but his actual quotes sound if he's just trying to capture votes from the religious nuts, not so much troubling. What really worries me is if he puts the bible above the US constitution, and wants to change the latter to better reflect the former. That mustn't happen in a secular, or for that matter, any free country, and for this reason I think he is not qualified to be president.


AMEN! :ohn:

USP
05-02-08, 20:39
Gravel is awesome. If I voted democratic I would vote for him
Theres a great video of him on youtube talking **** to Clinton

myrmaad
05-02-08, 20:41
Took the Quiz and got this result:
Hillary Clinton shares a 83% similarity with your beliefs

Obama was next with 80% similarity.


I like Mike Gravel also, but he doesn't stand a chance.

Mona Sax
05-02-08, 20:42
As for Huckabee: Is someone who outright rejects science qualified to lead one of the world's most technologically advanced nations? In my opinion, no, but his actual quotes sound if he's just trying to capture votes from the religious nuts, not so much troubling. What really worries me is if he puts the bible above the US constitution, and wants to change the latter to better reflect the former. That mustn't happen in a secular, or for that matter, any free country, and for this reason I think he is not qualified to be president.
Don't worry, the vast majority of Americans feels the same way. Huckabee hasn't got a chance.

Cochrane
05-02-08, 20:44
Don't worry, the vast majority of Americans feels the same way. Huckabee hasn't got a chance.

I sure hope so.

Is there any website that can show us what candidate is how far along? I keep hearing about super tuesdays and whatever, but I'd like to know who is currently leading and who isn't.

myrmaad
05-02-08, 20:46
Cochrane, it's best not to try to figure this out until after tomorrow's actual results are in, even then, the press will likely be trumpeting the "popular choice" but the real deal is the Delegate Count. That's what you have to watch.

Eddie Haskell
05-02-08, 20:46
I sure hope so.

Is there any website that can show us what candidate is how far along? I keep hearing about super tuesdays and whatever, but I'd like to know who is currently leading and who isn't.

CNN is usually good at keeping up. But we won't know much until late tonight.

VonCroy360
05-02-08, 20:47
Is there any website that can show us what candidate is how far along? I keep hearing about super tuesdays and whatever, but I'd like to know who is currently leading and who isn't.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primar ies#Results_by_delegation) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_presidential_primar ies#Results_by_delegation).

:)

Mad Tony
05-02-08, 20:47
I thought Gravel dropped out of the race a couple of weeks ago?

SamReeves
05-02-08, 20:47
I sure hope so.

Is there any website that can show us what candidate is how far along? I keep hearing about super tuesdays and whatever, but I'd like to know who is currently leading and who isn't.

I like Real Clear Politics. They do a good job of combining all the opinion polls together:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

VonCroy360
05-02-08, 20:49
I thought Gravel dropped out of the race a couple of weeks ago?

I also don't get it why doesn't he just give up. 0,4% in Michigan seems to be his best result.

USP
05-02-08, 20:50
That was Kucinich.
Gravel is still in it

Politico is usually pretty nice for tracking results.

Cochrane
05-02-08, 20:52
Cochrane, it's best not to try to figure this out until after tomorrow's actual results are in, even then, the press will likely be trumpeting the "popular choice" but the real deal is the Delegate Count. That's what you have to watch.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primar ies#Results_by_delegation) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Republican_presidential_primar ies#Results_by_delegation).

:)
I like Real Clear Politics. They do a good job of combining all the opinion polls together:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Thanks for all the suggestions. The primaries really are a heap of mess if you want to follow them but don't want to invest too much time into them.

in these arms
05-02-08, 20:53
Obama.

Punaxe
05-02-08, 21:21
According to a poll I have done, my opinion is closest to that of Bill Richardson. He withdrew though, which leaves Clinton as my most compatible candidate according to that poll.
Here, I voted for Barack Obama though, as he just made a more reliable impression on me during the campaign.
Obviously if I was elligible to vote I would have a better opinion of it all, so don't flame me :p

I just hope it's going to be a Democrat.

Quasimodo
05-02-08, 21:45
Btw, I just found this (http://glassbooth.org/) site today, and it is quite interesting. If you think about what you want and what are your priorities, it easily directs you to the candidate that would represent your interests the best.

The site showed me my selections are similar to Mike Gravel's (who doesn't really have any real chance), and I always liked Edwards till his withdrawal. My next choice would be Clinton, and I'd vote for her if I was in the position to do so.

:)

I got Mike Huckabee (69%), with Ron Paul as a runner-up (67%). Oddly enough the quiz says my views have a 65% similarity with both Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

domina
05-02-08, 22:47
I'd go with McCain.

Legends
05-02-08, 22:53
Hillary Clinton.

raiderfun
05-02-08, 22:58
I hope Clinton will get it, but McCain will most likely win :o

Andariel
05-02-08, 23:02
Hillary Clinton. I find her to be the most friendly, experienced, and capable runner. Also to be the most knowledgeable when it comes to US issue’s. :)

xMiSsCrOfTx
05-02-08, 23:03
Obama!

tranniversary119
05-02-08, 23:04
Clinton all the way :tmb: We need somebody to clean up the white house ;)

coolezpunk
05-02-08, 23:10
I'm not from the US, nor interested in politics, so I didn't vote at all! :)

mau3genius
05-02-08, 23:32
I used to like Barack Obama but, I think Hillary Clinton has a bigger chance to be the next president (If she wins on the primaries)

Draco
06-02-08, 00:23
It should be possible to distinguish between American and non American results...that would be interesting.

Mad Tony
06-02-08, 07:16
Hmm... odd. Hillary Clinton has got the most votes in this poll but in the other one Barack Obama is winning. :confused:

Melonie Tomb Raider
06-02-08, 07:17
Yeah, that's funny, Ben. :p I'm assuming most of our poll results aren't from Americans though. As Draco pointed out.

I was hoping for Huckabee on the Republican side and Obama on the Democrat side. Looks like McCain took it for the GOP though. I still like him a lot, but I like Huckabee better. And I sure as heck like Obama bettert han Hillary. ANYONE but her! *pukes*

SamReeves
06-02-08, 07:21
Depends on the states. Some states are worth more points than others, we don't go by popular vote.

But anyways, I was hoping for Huckabee on the Republican side and Obama on the Democrat side. Looks like McCain took it for the GOP though. I still like him a lot, but I like Huckabee better. And I sure as heck like Obama bettert han Hillary. ANYONE but her! *pukes*

Edit: Yeah... I agree with Draco. Would be nice. :p

He he. Indeed Mel. Anybody but Hillary.

Although it appears Huckabee won the TRF Republican primary. :D

ivannnnn
06-02-08, 07:23
bARACK oBAMA. :tmb:


He once lived in Indonesia. Woo... :jmp:

Melonie Tomb Raider
06-02-08, 07:24
Obama doesn't believe in God. Why should he be in charge of the highest office of the United States?

Actually he does. Or at least says he does. He's a self proclaimed Christian.

I'd love to see McCain or Huckabee, but on the other side of the spectrum, I'd much rather see Obama than any of the other Democrats.He's not too bad.

rowanlim
06-02-08, 07:26
Hillary for me. The best candidate IMO :tmb: ;)

Cochrane
06-02-08, 07:31
It should be possible to distinguish between American and non American results...that would be interesting.

Yeah, I guess if there were only american results, it'd be much more even than that. Currently, the poll favors democrats pretty strongly, but I would assume that is to a large degree because many europeans really hate Bush and consequently his party. My guess for the actual presidential election is that it'll be really close again, like the past two years.

Mad Tony
06-02-08, 07:40
Yeah, I guess if there were only american results, it'd be much more even than that. Currently, the poll favors democrats pretty strongly, but I would assume that is to a large degree because many europeans really hate Bush and consequently his party. My guess for the actual presidential election is that it'll be really close again, like the past two years.So true. Notice how I'm the only non-American who's voted a Republican candidate?

Cochrane
06-02-08, 07:47
So true. Notice how I'm the only non-American who's voted a Republican candidate?

To be honest, when reading your posts it always takes some work for me to realize that you're from England instead of Texas anyway. :D

But I think it's interesting to see such statistics. Obviously, there are too little people to make really qualified statements about anything, but you can see at least some interesting trends.

Edit:
Just found an interesting proposal, and I think I'll just let it speak for itself: http://valleywag.com/352898/steve-jobs-for-president

kryptonite23
06-02-08, 08:57
Clinton!! ;)

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 09:31
Obama doesn't believe in God. Why should he be in charge of the highest office of the United States?
Even if that were the case, which it isn't - there's a difference between believing in some god and thinking your own religion should provide the moral guidelines for everybody else. Religion has to stay a private issue, especially for the person 'in charge of the highest office of the United States'.

Geck-o-Lizard
06-02-08, 09:57
Just a random topic to throw into the conversation, it's been suggested that political leaning - preference of left or right style politics - is genetic/inherited, and is almost impossible to change.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070524_ideological_leaning.html

Draco
06-02-08, 13:27
It's based on personality. Some people prefer to be taken care of or the illusion of it, some others prefer to live their life with as little government help (and tax) as possible.

So in that sense, it is genetic/inherited.

Mad Tony
06-02-08, 13:59
To be honest, when reading your posts it always takes some work for me to realize that you're from England instead of Texas anyway. :DHaha! :D How come? :p

Just a random topic to throw into the conversation, it's been suggested that political leaning - preference of left or right style politics - is genetic/inherited, and is almost impossible to change.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070524_ideological_leaning.htmlInteresting. Well, my dad is conservative (like myself) but I would say my mom is more of a centrist or a liberal.

Trigger_happy
06-02-08, 14:34
Wow, looking at the poll, it seems that our views sort of reflect the current situation in the US. I'm no expert (I only do AS politics) but that was quite surprising. I thought that there would be more votes for Obama.

I voted for Hillary, by the way.

Andariel
06-02-08, 14:41
I think some people can’t handle the thought of a strong woman leading a country. :p

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 14:43
I think some people can’t handle the thought of a strong woman leading a country. :p

Nah, I just can't handle the thought of paying tenfold taxes and wage garnishing so that some guy can live off of "national healthcare." And strong - why, she cries more than Legend Lara!

Edit: I'd love to see how superwoman Hilary reacts to a nuclear Iran, let alone Obama. She can't control her own husband. How can she control the world?

Capt. Murphy
06-02-08, 15:12
Wow, looking at the poll, it seems that our views sort of reflect the current situation in the US.
That might be because there are more ...less than conservative -members here on this forum. ;)

I voted for Mike Huckleberry!

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 15:15
That might be because there are more ...less than conservative -members here on this forum. ;)

Idealist single female teenagers, mostly.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 15:15
I've always thought "conservative" is such a gross misnomer.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 15:18
Even if that were the case, which it isn't - there's a difference between believing in some god and thinking your own religion should provide the moral guidelines for everybody else. Religion has to stay a private issue, especially for the person 'in charge of the highest office of the United States'.

Well said.

To be perfectly honest, as a practicing Catholic I would prefer an atheist in the White House. Why? Because he would think only about improving our lives in this life, not in the next one. I'll leave that help and advice to my priests capable hands.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 15:18
I've always thought "conservative" is such a gross misnomer.

Whereas "liberal" is an unfortunate truism.

No, conservative refers to limited government.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 15:21
Idealist single female teenagers, mostly.
Idealist, yeah, the rest you can scrap. I think it's important to have ideals and dreams, otherwise we're as good as dead.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 15:32
Whereas "liberal" is an unfortunate truism.

No, conservative refers to limited government.

Incorrect. It historically has its roots in an ideological philosophy: "conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture"

I have a long and informative dissertation on this somewhere, which is quite interesting and enlightening, particular in how perverted present day ideas of what it means are compared to the original philosophy.

Maybe when I get home from school today I'll see if I can find it. It's not on the web that I could find.

Quasimodo
06-02-08, 15:32
What's the official definition of conservative and liberal as a political standing, anyway? Both sides have been guilty of bending the meaning of these words to suit their own arguments, which makes the words lose their meaning.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 15:33
Incorrect. It historically has its roots in an ideological philosophy: "conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture"

I have a long and informative dissertation on this somewhere, which is quite interesting and enlightening, particular in how perverted present day ideas of what it means are compared to the original philosophy.

Maybe when I get home from school today I'll see if I can find it. It's not on the web that I could find.

A dissertation from a college professor, or a political analyst? That might be why you couldn't find it on the web.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 15:37
NO Dear it's a historical document that you'd find little to disagree with, even you! Imagine that.

But what I find really revealing is how you threw out your little "made up" answer as if it was a fact.

Melonie Tomb Raider
06-02-08, 15:42
I think some people can’t handle the thought of a strong woman leading a country. :p

Well if there was a strong woman running for president, maybe more people would consider it. :D

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 15:43
NO Dear it's a historical document that you'd find little to disagree with, even you! Imagine that.

But what I find really revealing is how you threw out your little "made up" answer as if it was a fact.

History may not change, but its interpretations do.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 15:47
You know what bothers me? When people use 'liberal' as if it were an insult. Clearly shows that those people don't understand the concept of liberalism.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 15:49
You know what bothers me? When people use 'liberal' as if it were an insult. Clearly shows that those people don't understand the concept of liberalism.

Oh, I'm sure they do. In the United States during the 1960s, "Communist" was considered the worst insult of all.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 15:49
I think that was a bit harsh, I apologize. I do realize you're not a political science major (I actually still am, though I'm not going to finish that particular degree requirements before I enroll in law school).

In fact the document was sent to me via email, not something I came across in my curriculum, but something I came across before I went back to school, I've had it in my possession for about 7 years.

It's very sensible, I certainly would think that "conservatives" would aspire to the original principles, though I disagree with most of them.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 15:52
You know what bothers me? When people use 'liberal' as if it were an insult. Clearly shows that those people don't understand the concept of liberalism.

And they probably never will, as long as they continue to listen to the hateful diatribe from talk radio spewing their garbage.

On a bright note, it seems that Mr. Limbaugh and his contemporaries are not as persuading as they think they are. McCain seems to doing just fine.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 15:55
And they probably never will, as long as they continue to listen to the hateful diatribe from talk radio spewing their garbage.

On a bright note, it seems that Mr. Limbaugh and his contemporaries are not as persuading as they think they are. McCain seems to doing just fine.

Which is why I agree with Mr. Boortz, who says that either McCain, Huckabee, or Romney would be good for the country.
Limbaugh's just fun to listen to.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 15:59
Oh, I'm sure they do. In the United States during the 1960s, "Communist" was considered the worst insult of all.
And that shows they simply don't know communism. I still see people referring to others as 'commies' and considering them the children of the wicked. I doubt any of them has read Marx or Engels. Their idea of communism is based on Soviet, Cuban and Chinese politicians that abused a social ideology to justify a tyranny.

I'm far from being a communist, by the way, I'm an individualist. I'm farther from communism than your average conservative with his collective ideology! I just hate it when people need to belittle and insult others to make a point, that's all. IMO it disqualifies them as participants in a serious discussion.

Quasimodo
06-02-08, 16:03
And they probably never will, as long as they continue to listen to the hateful diatribe from talk radio spewing their garbage.

On a bright note, it seems that Mr. Limbaugh and his contemporaries are not as persuading as they think they are. McCain seems to doing just fine.

I always listen to Limbaugh and Hannity with a grain of salt. I'm glad the voting populace is thinking more for themselves, and not simply voting for someone because so-and-so on the radio said they should.

knutroald
06-02-08, 16:04
U like fishing games?

:vlol:

- I think I'd have to go for McCain. He seems old and wise. I don't like what Obama is saying about dragging more religion into the government. Not because he's Muslim, but because of seeing how other countries runned by Muslim organizations have ended up. I do not want America to become one of those countries where people get stoned to death. As if America isn't religious enough already. And I'm afraid of a big religious war, I think theres one coming soon:(

Isn't that against everything this country was built upon though? I thought the deceleration of Independence said something like church and state shall be separate.
And as for Hillary, I feel she's playing to much on the fact that she's a woman. I dunno, I guess since she is she's gonna be criticized for pretty much anything she does anyway.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 16:07
Obama is not a Muslim, and if you don't want religion in the White House, you should be more worried about pretty much all other candidates.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 16:08
This will do nicely:
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/3#2


Obama is not a Muslim, and if you don't want religion in the white house, you should be more worried about pretty much all other candidates.

As Mona said, OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM. Bush, Romney, and Huckabee are the ones who I think are the most likely to enmesh us into a world religious war. (Obviously Bush before his term is up.)

knutroald
06-02-08, 16:11
Obama is not a Muslim, and if you don't want religion in the White House, you should be more worried about pretty much all other candidates.

Oh I guess I misunderstood. Don't get much American news and stuff over here:(

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 16:13
Bush, Romney, and Huckabee are the ones who I think are the most likely to enmesh us into a world religious war. (Obviously Bush before his term is up.)

How?

touchthesky
06-02-08, 16:15
Hillary.

Women ftw.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 16:18
You never read my posts do you? How? Did you notice Bush in Israel last month? Did you notice Bush, yet again, making his case for invading Iran? Did you happen to notice that he's a Christian, and he believes in Armageddon. Did you ever notice how Christians want Armageddon, since it will prove the Biblical Revelation, and anyway, they'll be snatched out of harm's way while still in their PJs in an ecstasy of Rapture, while the rest of the world (read "liberals") burn. Imagine the glee.

Didja EVER NOTICE: that the education bill was called "No child left behind"? and that was some kind of massive Cowinkydink with the Christian Rapture series of books of the same title "Left Behind".

You might have noticed I thought they should kiss my left behind.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 16:23
You never read my posts do you? How? Did you notice Bush in Israel last month? Did you notice Bush, yet again, making his case for invading Iran? Did you happen to notice that he's a Christian, and he believes in Armageddon. Did you ever notice how Christians want Armageddon, since it will prove the Biblical Revelation, and anyway, they'll be snatched out of harm's way while still in their PJs in an ecstasy of Rapture, while the rest of the world (read "liberals") burn. Imagine the glee.

Inconclusive reasoning and interpretation. Also, you mentioned Romney and Huckabee. How can they "enmesh us in a religious war"? Because they're *gasp* Christians?

Mad Tony
06-02-08, 16:26
Hillary.

Women ftw.Besides the fact that Hillary is a woman, why else would you like to see her as American president?

I get the feeling that quite a large portion of Hillary's supporters (no, not all, but quite a few) only support her because she's the only woman in the presidential race.

knutroald
06-02-08, 16:28
Besides the fact that Hillary is a woman, why else would you like to see her as American president?

I get the feeling that quite a large portion of Hillary's supporters (no, not all, but quite a few) only support her because she's the only woman in the presidential race.

That's how I feel too. I don't dislike her for being a woman or anything I just don't think that's a good enough reason to vote for a politician.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 16:29
Besides the fact that Hillary is a woman, why else would you like to see her as American president?

I get the feeling that quite a large portion of Hillary's supporters (no, not all, but quite a few) only support her because she's the only woman in the presidential race.

It is not quite as simple as that Mad Tony. Although certainly it plays into ones selection. The positional differences between Obama and Clinton are slight. So in this context ones gender might make the difference. And not too many Republican women would vote for her, that's for sure.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 16:30
It is not quite as simple as that Mad Tony. Although certainly it plays into ones selection. The positional differences between Obama and Clinton are slight. So in this context ones gender might make the difference. And not too many Republican women would vote for her, that's for sure.

Now hold on.

If you voted for Clinton over Obama, you'd be a Southern 19th-century racist who prefers white females to clean, articulate black males.

If you prefer Obama to Clinton, you're a sexist troglodyte.

Who's to choose? ;)

myrmaad
06-02-08, 16:31
Inconclusive reasoning and interpretation.

I have incredible instincts, you'd be amazed at my accuracy in predicting what Bush will do since before he was selected by the Supremes. So let's leave this one in the record, and see how it pans out this time.

Also, you mentioned Romney and Huckabee. How can they "enmesh us in a religious war"? Because they're *gasp* Christians?

Thus will continue Bush's policies, of course.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 16:35
The positional differences between Obama and Clinton are slight. So in this context ones gender might make the difference. And not too many Republican women would vote for her, that's for sure.

Speaking as a conservative who hates Hillary and hates McCain, I think Obama comes across as honest and likable. If it comes down to Obama versus McCain, then I expect Obama will win because McCain doesn't inspire a lot of conservative support, while Obama does not inspire conservative hatred. For that reason, I think that the Democratic party is suicidal if they choose Hillary over Obama. So many people hate Hillary that they would vote for whoever was against her, no matter what. (Edit: That has nothing to do with her gender. It's because of all of the illegal things she's done and somehow gotten away with, like ruining people's lives with IRS audits just so her friends could have their jobs, or stealing FBI files on her political rivals)

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 16:35
Now hold on.

If you voted for Clinton over Obama, you'd be a Southern 19th-century racist who prefers white females to clean, articulate black males.

If you prefer Obama to Clinton, you're a sexist troglodyte.

Who's to choose? ;)
Whoever said that?

Ward Dragon, why do you oppose McCain? Hillary I understand, she's regularly portrayed as the devil incarnate by conservative opinion leaders, but McCain?

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 16:36
Whoever said that?

Just poking fun at class warfare, nobody really said it.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 16:41
Ward Dragon, why do you oppose McCain? Hillary I understand, she's regularly portrayed as the devil incarnate by conservative opinion leaders, but McCain?

He opposes free speech (McCain-Feingold, for instance). He's in favor of stricter gun control, and he's weak against immigration. Also, I don't like how he misportrays Romney's positions or had his delegates in West Virginia go for Huckabee just to spite Romney. I realize nothing about that is illegal, but it makes me dislike his personality in addition to his positions.

Edit: Also, as I said before, I don't think he can win the presidency. I know you hate terms like "liberal" but if you look at where McCain gets his votes, it's definitely from the more liberal places. Would those people really vote for McCain in the general election when they have a Democrat to choose? If McCain somehow did win the White House, then he'd cave in to all of the Democratic policies anyway, and whatever doesn't work would be blamed on the Republicans since the president calls himself that. If I'm going to get stuck with Democratic policies anyway, I'd rather the Democrats just take all credit for it and do it openly in the form of Obama.

Cochrane
06-02-08, 16:41
Inconclusive reasoning and interpretation. Also, you mentioned Romney and Huckabee. How can they "enmesh us in a religious war"? Because they're *gasp* Christians?

Not so sure about Romney, but Huckabee has mentioned that he'd wish for the constitution of the US to be brought to "God's standard" (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx). That may not be an act of war in itself, but taking religion more seriously than the standards of freedom and equality in the US constitution is a huge step on a way to intolerance. And intolerance is not necessarily the same as peace.

danitiwa
06-02-08, 16:45
Hillary.

Women ftw.

She is a woman, but I'm not so keen on one family having the rule more than once, people are going on about her going power crazy and such. :p

I can't really chose, since Almost all of the REP ones; I have no idea who they are.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 16:49
He opposes free speech (McCain-Feingold, for instance). He's in favor of stricter gun control, and he's weak against immigration. Also, I don't like how he misportrays Romney's positions or had his delegates in West Virginia go for Huckabee just to spite Romney. I realize nothing about that is illegal, but it makes me dislike his personality in addition to his positions.

Edit: Also, as I said before, I don't think he can win the presidency. I know you hate terms like "liberal" but if you look at where McCain gets his votes, it's definitely from the more liberal places. Would those people really vote for McCain in the general election when they have a Democrat to choose? If McCain somehow did win the White House, then he'd cave in to all of the Democratic policies anyway, and whatever doesn't work would be blamed on the Republicans since the president calls himself that. If I'm going to get stuck with Democratic policies anyway, I'd rather the Democrats just take all credit for it and do it openly in the form of Obama.
Fair enough. I think McCain is the most widely accepted of the Republican candidates because he's likely to listen to other people, too. Huckabee or, to a lesser degree, Romney would be Bush all over again - a president for the religious right. I don't think he's liberal, though, that's like calling the pope an atheist.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 16:52
Not so sure about Romney, but Huckabee has mentioned that he'd wish for the constitution of the US to be brought to "God's standard" (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx). That may not be an act of war in itself, but taking religion more seriously than the standards of freedom and equality in the US constitution is a huge step on a way to intolerance. And intolerance is not necessarily the same as peace.

Romney is the shill for the status quo, regardless of what he says on the stump. The corporate wing of the party needs him to win, so you can bet that he will stay in until some agreement can be made with another candidate. Who that will be is anyones guess. The other Republicans are far from this mold, and they know that McCain is a real maverick and somewhat independent.

As for Huckabee, if it wasn't for his religious backing he would be gone long ago. he has 0% chance of winning so no one should worry about it.

Cochrane
06-02-08, 16:54
How religious is Romney, really? From what little I know, he mainly seems to actively avoid that topic as far as possible, and when can't do, goes out of his way to step on as little toes as possible. However, my research is clearly limited.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 16:55
Fair enough. I think McCain is the most widely accepted of the Republican candidates because he's likely to listen to other people, too. Huckabee or, to a lesser degree, Romney would be Bush all over again - a president for the religious right. I don't think he's liberal, though, that's like calling the pope an atheist.

McCain is definitely more liberal than any other Republican candidate. I was using the term relatively because there are no absolutes when it comes to conservative versus liberal :) As for Romney, religion really isn't an issue for me, but he's hardly the religious right. I get the impression that the extreme religious right hates him because he's Mormon. In any case, I haven't heard Romney say anything that gives me the impression he'd make a decision purely upon religious ideals without some sort of secular reason for doing it. (On the other hand, I've heard Huckabee say he's going to be a compassionate Christian by giving my tax dollars to illegal immigrants :hea:)

How religious is Romney, really? From what little I know, he mainly seems to actively avoid that topic as far as possible, and when can't do, goes out of his way to step on as little toes as possible. However, my research is clearly limited.

I'm not sure how religious Romney is, but the reason he avoids the question is because he's Mormon and doesn't want the more evangelical conservatives to constantly be reminded of that.

Cochrane
06-02-08, 16:55
She is a woman, but I'm not so keen on one family having the rule more than once, people are going on about her going power crazy and such. :p

Oh come on, when was the last time that happened? Oh, right...

Edit:
I'm not sure how religious Romney is, but the reason he avoids the question is because he's Mormon and doesn't want the more evangelical conservatives to constantly be reminded of that. That's also basically the conclusion I got out of Wikipedia's entry about him, which contrasts with what people here are saying about him, leading to my initial question.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 17:01
How religious is Romney, really? From what little I know, he mainly seems to actively avoid that topic as far as possible, and when can't do, goes out of his way to step on as little toes as possible. However, my research is clearly limited.

Many in the US think of Mormonism as a cult, not a real religion. So he has that going against him. And as WD said, he tries to avoid speaking about his religion for this and other reasons. If he were a Democrat, it would be much less of a factor in the primaries.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 17:01
I get the impression that the extreme religious right hates him because he's Mormon.
Yeah, that's true. I think it's kind of funny because people hardly ever come more conservative than Mormons. :D Then again, the extreme religious right seems to hate everybody who's not exactly like them.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 17:10
How religious is Romney, really? From what little I know, he mainly seems to actively avoid that topic as far as possible, and when can't do, goes out of his way to step on as little toes as possible. However, my research is clearly limited.

Huh???

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/specialreport/story.aspx?content_id=d3b1fa4d-45af-41fe-90e9-1e81e217d220

Quasimodo
06-02-08, 17:23
OT but :vlol: : rate the romney sons (http://slcoutsider.blogspot.com/2007/12/rate-romneys.html)

Cochrane
06-02-08, 17:23
Hm. There's some religious male cow excrement in there (saying that the constitution was made for religious people and requires religion), but on the other hand he also says that he won't let religion influence his decisions. What the hell is his real opinion?

SamReeves
06-02-08, 17:29
I think some people can’t handle the thought of a strong woman leading a country. :p

Yes, only if it's a Democrat it seems for some people. If Condi ran, most of the liberals would still crap all over her. They wouldn't say "hey a black woman is running for President of the United States, this is great." They'd just start the same crappy rhetoric they always do. If there's a stereotype that needs to be broken, it's that all conservatives are white.

Well if there was a strong woman running for president, maybe more people would consider it. :D

You bet. The current candidate on the Democrats sucks eggs. Hell she couldn't keep Bill in check. How is she going to keep the United States in check. I expect a repeat of the Jimmy Carter years if she is elected.

Obama is not a Muslim, and if you don't want religion in the White House, you should be more worried about pretty much all other candidates.

I am concerned. For crap's sake, whatever religion the President pratices is his own business. The idea he or she has to be a 100% secular is plain silly. I suppose we should oust the founding fathers because they mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence?

You never read my posts do you? How? Did you notice Bush in Israel last month? Did you notice Bush, yet again, making his case for invading Iran? Did you happen to notice that he's a Christian, and he believes in Armageddon. Did you ever notice how Christians want Armageddon, since it will prove the Biblical Revelation, and anyway, they'll be snatched out of harm's way while still in their PJs in an ecstasy of Rapture, while the rest of the world (read "liberals") burn. Imagine the glee.

Didja EVER NOTICE: that the education bill was called "No child left behind"? and that was some kind of massive Cowinkydink with the Christian Rapture series of books of the same title "Left Behind".

You might have noticed I thought they should kiss my left behind.

Wha? When did Bush say we're invading Iran. Sanctions? Yes. Invaison? No. And what's with the Christian rhetoric this morning? For all the voting most liberals do, and complain about the religious right…well nothing has gotten done with the secular left over the past two years in Congress.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 17:32
Hm. There's some religious male cow excrement in there (saying that the constitution was made for religious people and requires religion), but on the other hand he also says that he won't let religion influence his decisions. What the hell is his real opinion?

That opinion is shared by many in the Republican party, and obviously to the Christian Conservatives. Secular humanism is laughed off by these people, since they feel that religion is needed for one to proclaim real moral values. And for a good segment of these people, only their religion has a monopoly on this.

The Democrats do not have this sword hanging over their heads.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 17:42
I am concerned. For crap's sake, whatever religion the President pratices is his own business. The idea he or she has to be a 100% secular is plain silly. I suppose we should oust the founding fathers because they mentioned God in the Declaration of Independence?
A president shouldn't let his religion interfere with his job, that's all. And yeah, I think if you want every citizen to be able to respect official documents, you should keep them neutral. I'd oppose atheistic wordings in constitutions etc. just as much as I oppose religious messages. Any state has to be there for all citizens, so it shouldn't favor any religion.
…well nothing has gotten done with the secular left over the past two years in Congress.
Kind of hard to get anywhere with a president who constantly exercises his power of veto. ;)

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 17:43
A president shouldn't let his religion interfere with his job, that's all.

When has that occurred? And don't say embryonic stem cell research.

Edit: Myrmaad, I'm not asking you this question. I've already heard your side, Israel, Iran, etc..

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 17:45
Bush constantly mentions his religion.

Cochrane
06-02-08, 17:46
When has that occurred? And don't say embryonic stem cell research.

Edit: Myrmaad, I'm not asking you this question. I've already heard your side, Israel, Iran, etc..

Why not say embryonic stem cell research? If you want people not to use an argument, then you got to tell them why the argument sucks, otherwise they'll ignore your request. I know I do.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 17:46
Bush constantly mentions his religion.

Clutching at straws! Dodging the question! Whistling in the wind!

I want specific examples on how it INTERFERES with his judgment.

Why not say embryonic stem cell research? If you want people not to use an argument, then you got to tell them why the argument sucks, otherwise they'll ignore your request. I know I do.

Because there have been no new cures or treatments as a result of the research, despite massive spending, unlike adult stem cell research.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 17:52
Clutching at straws! Dodging the question! Whistling in the wind!

I want specific examples on how it INTERFERES with his judgment.
His moral values are very obviously deeply rooted in his religion. Abortion, gay rights, religious freedom, the role of science, everything. That would be no problem if you could discuss that stuff with him, but that's impossible. He's a fundamentalist.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 17:55
His moral values are very obviously deeply rooted in his religion. Abortion, gay rights, religious freedom, the role of science, everything. That would be no problem if you could discuss that stuff with him, but that's impossible. He's a fundamentalist.

Our government is as decentralized as it is federal. Only states have the ability to legislate abortion and gay rights; federal government cannot legislate this no matter what, as its unconstitutional, and one very rarely has Republicans in the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office at the same time. I could argue that evolution is as religious as creation in science, but you would think me crazy. He is just as fundamentalist as you and I. However, I still have not seen any instance where any particularly beneficial legislature for the greater good of the country and the people has been struck down because of his religious persuasion.

And your lack of an ability to give me such an example can only prove that you failed to prove a point.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 17:58
And I could mention most of his controversial decisions, but you probably wouldn't believe it.

The ability to legislate doesn't matter here since there have been attempts to decide all of the issues I mentioned in the constitution, thus taking them out of the states' hands.

PARANOIA
06-02-08, 18:00
And I could mention most of his controversial decisions, but you probably wouldn't believe it.

Because you don't have any, perhaps?

The ability to legislate doesn't matter here since there have been attempts to decide all of the issues I mentioned in the constitution, thus taking them out of the states' hands.

Oh, so because you say it's true, it must be. :o

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 18:01
When has that occurred? And don't say embryonic stem cell research.

I have heard Huckabee say that he will aid illegal immigrants because it's the "compassionate Christian" thing to do. I think it is very troubling if he would make decisions like that purely upon his religion without considering secular things like economics and law enforcement.



By the way, thank you for posting that speech, Myrmaad. It strengthened my belief that Romney will uphold the law and consider all secular consequences for his decisions rather than solely relying upon his religious ideals.

Quasimodo
06-02-08, 18:03
I have heard Huckabee say that he will aid illegal immigrants because it's the "compassionate Christian" thing to do. I think it is very troubling if he would make decisions like that purely upon his religion without considering secular things like economics and law enforcement.



By the way, thank you for posting that speech, Myrmaad. It strengthened my belief that Romney will uphold the law and consider all secular consequences for his decisions rather than solely relying upon his religious ideals.

This is part of what swayed me to support Romney instead of Huckabee, whose heart-over-head thinking makes me kind of queasy when considering him as a presidential candidate.

Cochrane
06-02-08, 18:04
Our government is as decentralized as it is federal. Only states have the ability to legislate abortion and gay rights; federal government cannot legislate this no matter what, as its unconstitutional, and one very rarely has Republicans in the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office at the same time. I could argue that evolution is as religious as creation in science, but you would think me crazy. He is just as fundamentalist as you and I. However, I still have not seen any instance where any particularly beneficial legislature for the greater good of the country and the people has been struck down because of his religious persuasion.

And your lack of an ability to give me such an example can only prove that you failed to prove a point.

What about the the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/), established under Bush, with the goal of providing social services through religious groups? Certainly religious.

He has also threatened to stop a law that expands the definition of hate crime to include sexuality (among other points). I think that fits the definition of legislature that benefits the american people, struck down (or at least threatened to be struck down) for religious reasons.

Edited to add:
Oh, so because you say it's true, it must be. :o
As far as I know Mona Sax from the forums here, I'd actually say that statement is correct, but if you want actual evidence, look at the Federal Marriage Amendment, which takes the definition of marriage from the states by virtue of a constitutional amendment, and which was, while not passed, supported by the Bush administration.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 18:09
Bush actually said in his first Presidential race that he thought that God wanted him to be President. That says enough.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 18:09
@ Paranoia:
- Health insurance
- Patriot act
- Evolution/creationism
- Israel/Palestine
- Taxes
- Gay marriage

Want me to go on? As for the second part of your post, no. Bush's positions are no secret, and neither is the fact that many Republicans want them to be written down in the constitution. Just check this page (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/) for the candidates' opinions on several hot topics. I'm not going to do the reading for you, if that's going to be your next question.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 18:13
What about the the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/), established under Bush, with the goal of providing social services through religious groups? Certainly religious.

This is the first I've heard about it, so I may be wrong, but I just did a quick read of the site you provided. It sounds like the initiative is not religious in nature. Rather, it allows religious charities to receive government assistance as long as they do not discriminate religiously when deciding who to help. Personally, I'd rather have the Salvation Army doing charity as opposed to FEMA :whi:

He has also threatened to stop a law that expands the definition of hate crime to include sexuality (among other points). I think that fits the definition of legislature that benefits the american people, struck down (or at least threatened to be struck down) for religious reasons.

I hate the concept of "hate crime." I think everything that's counted as "hate crime" already falls under some other category (grafitti, assault, harassment, murder, etc.) so I feel like also charging somebody with a "hate crime" is double jeopardy. If the person really is such a hate-filled *******, then surely he will be convicted and receive the maximum sentence for whatever crime he committed.

Cochrane
06-02-08, 18:18
This is the first I've heard about it, so I may be wrong, but I just did a quick read of the site you provided. It sounds like the initiative is not religious in nature. Rather, it allows religious charities to receive government assistance as long as they do not discriminate religiously when deciding who to help. Personally, I'd rather have the Salvation Army doing charity as opposed to FEMA :whi:
According to Wikipedia, there's lots of criticism surrounding it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith_Based_and_Community_In itiatives I just didn't want to link to Wikipedia at first, because I guess some people here would scream about Wikipedia being liberal BS, even though it mainly collects quotes and links you to other sites that you may or may not trust more.


I hate the concept of "hate crime." I think everything that's counted as "hate crime" already falls under some other category (grafitti, assault, harassment, murder, etc.) so I feel like also charging somebody with a "hate crime" is double jeopardy. If the person really is such a hate-filled *******, then surely he will be convicted and receive the maximum sentence for whatever crime he committed.
Good point. However, if there is hate crime to begin with, then sexuality should be included in the list of things you mustn't hate crime for. The other idea would be to abolish "hate crime" as a seperate crime category altogether, as you point out. Bush actively campaigned for doing neither.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 18:29
According to Wikipedia, there's lots of criticism surrounding it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith_Based_and_Community_In itiatives I just didn't want to link to Wikipedia at first, because I guess some people here would scream about Wikipedia being liberal BS, even though it mainly collects quotes and links you to other sites that you may or may not trust more.

Alright then. I didn't see anything particularly wrong with what I read before, but if the regulations aren't being enforced then I agree that's a problem.

The other idea would be to abolish "hate crime" as a seperate crime category altogether, as you point out.

Right. I really think that would be the best option. Some crimes are so heinous that they deserve a harsher punishment. However, not all of these heinous crimes are motivated by one of the legally recognized hatreds. I think it really should be up to the judge and jury to evaluate each individual case and give an appropriate sentence (within a commonly accepted range). If a crime was motivated by some form of bigotry, then that will factor into the judge's decision of what sentence best fits the crime.

Earthcane
06-02-08, 18:46
Um, Don't really give a damn, tbh :o

I'm sure they're all equally politicians at the end of the day.

And you know which definition of politician I mean :mis: :o

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 18:48
Alright then. I didn't see anything particularly wrong with what I read before, but if the regulations aren't being enforced then I agree that's a problem.



Right. I really think that would be the best option. Some crimes are so heinous that they deserve a harsher punishment. However, not all of these heinous crimes are motivated by one of the legally recognized hatreds. I think it really should be up to the judge and jury to evaluate each individual case and give an appropriate sentence (within a commonly accepted range). If a crime was motivated by some form of bigotry, then that will factor into the judge's decision of what sentence best fits the crime.

The main reason that I am for designating some of these as hate crimes is that it might deter some individuals (racists) from carrying through on a physical assault. Particularly if their life's record shows a history of violence and racism. They may think twice before attacking someone and getting the book thrown at them instead of the typical slap on the wrist that a battery charge would bring.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 18:57
The main reason that I am for designating some of these as hate crimes is that it might deter some individuals (racists) from carrying through on a physical assault. Particularly if their life's record shows a history of violence and racism. They may think twice before attacking someone and getting the book thrown at them instead of the typical slap on the wrist that a battery charge would bring.

My view is that battery shouldn't be a slap on the wrist in the first place. If harsher punishments will deter crime, then why not have that apply to all forms of battery? I think it would be better to increase the maximum possible sentence and then allow the judge to apply extra punishment for all cases that deserve it, not just racially-motivated cases. So basically, all of the crimes that count as "hate crimes" now would have increased sentences, but the judge would also be able to give increased sentences to unique cases that deserve it but weren't thought of when the "hate crimes" laws were written. I mean some of the sick **** that goes on just boggles the mind and definitely warrants harsher than usual punishment, but there's no way a rational person could have foreseen that something like that would ever happen.

Melonie Tomb Raider
06-02-08, 20:12
Besides the fact that Hillary is a woman, why else would you like to see her as American president?

I get the feeling that quite a large portion of Hillary's supporters (no, not all, but quite a few) only support her because she's the only woman in the presidential race.

I agree.

It's flat out sexist, and not right. If people said, "I want to vote for [insert candidate name other than Hillary] because he's a man." the femenist would have a hay day with it.

Double standards... bleh.

Melonie Tomb Raider
06-02-08, 20:16
You bet. The current candidate on the Democrats sucks eggs. Hell she couldn't keep Bill in check. How is she going to keep the United States in check. I expect a repeat of the Jimmy Carter years if she is elected.


Excellent point. If a person cannot control their household, they sure as heck can't control a country.

Edit. Sorry for the double post.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 20:42
Hell she couldn't keep Bill in check. How is she going to keep the United States in check

What a phenomenally "uninformed" statement, let alone the epitome of sexist.

Obviously neither of you are married. You both may be in for a rude surprise if you ever marry.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 20:48
What a phenomenally "uninformed" statement, let alone the epitome of sexist.

Obviously neither of you are married. You both may be in for a rude surprise if you ever marry.

Ain't that the truth...;)

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 20:51
What was she supposed to do, keep him on a leash? :D

ECB
06-02-08, 20:53
I voted for Barack. No offense, but I think Hilary's agenda is to take over the world....

SamReeves
06-02-08, 21:00
What a phenomenally "uninformed" statement, let alone the epitome of sexist.

Obviously neither of you are married. You both may be in for a rude surprise if you ever marry.

Hmmm, Mel's a woman, and she didn't seem to think it was sexist. :whi:

Just common sense in my book. Hillary Clinton didn't seem all that bothered by Bill's affairs. It puts doubt in my mind what kind of corruption she would allow in government. Thanks for the straw man though! ;)

Cochrane
06-02-08, 21:00
You bet. The current candidate on the Democrats sucks eggs. Hell she couldn't keep Bill in check. How is she going to keep the United States in check. I expect a repeat of the Jimmy Carter years if she is elected.

You're completely right. We have to find a president who makes sure that the whole nation does not have an affair with an intern.

On a more serious note: Now do you want Hillary to control or not (assuming she becomes president)? On the one hand we have "Hilary's agenda is to take over the world", on the other hand we have "she can't control her husband so she can't control the nation". Those two don't match.

Edit: Would she be more qualified for president, in your opinion, if she had divorced him?

Lara's home
06-02-08, 21:02
Hillary Clinton.
I find her the best one, with Obama a close second.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 21:09
Hmmm, Mel's a woman, and she didn't seem to think it was sexist. :whi:

Just common sense in my book. Hillary Clinton didn't seem all that bothered by Bill's affairs. It puts doubt in my mind what kind of corruption she would allow in government. Thanks for the straw man though! ;)

You're throwing the knives way close to the bone, here, I'm a woman too, and I noticed Mel thought that voting for Hilary because she's a woman was sexist as well. I don't, and I'm a woman.

I'm also a woman who has been cheated and have done a helova lot of research on why people cheat. And how many people cheat (the majority of marriages over 5 years in the US have been sullied by cheating).

To essentially BLAME ME for my husband's cheating is about as ignorant and low as one can go.

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 21:12
Just common sense in my book. Hillary Clinton didn't seem all that bothered by Bill's affairs. It puts doubt in my mind what kind of corruption she would allow in government. Thanks for the straw man though! ;)
What, a tolerant and open mind = corruption galore? That I find hard to believe.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 21:13
What, a tolerant and open mind = corruption galore? That I find hard to believe.

How about the qualities of "forgiving, steadfast, devoted, and loyal".

Mona Sax
06-02-08, 21:23
Heck, I don't understand why people find it so hard to differentiate between somebody's private and professional life anyway. Sure, Bill messed up, but in the end, it had nothing to do with his achievements as president. I don't support politicians because I like what they do in their bedrooms (or offices).

Like you, I think her standing by him makes her more likable. I'm sure she gave him a piece of her mind in private, and rightfully so.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 21:25
Edit: Would she be more qualified for president, in your opinion, if she had divorced him?

I don't like getting personal, and I don't have all the details, but I get the impression that she only stayed with him because of her political ambitions. If she had stayed with him out of love, that would be totally different. However, it seems to me like she'd do anything just to gain power, and part of that led her to refuse to give up her husband's political connections.

Edit: Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with why I won't vote for her.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 21:26
That's funny, I wonder what makes your (very different) perception more valid than mine?

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 21:29
That's funny, I wonder what makes your (very different) perception more valid than mine?

I guess we are both reading what we want into it. I'll just say that you seem like a much better person than Hillary and I'm sure your motives are pure, so anything said against Hillary does not apply to you :)

USP
06-02-08, 21:30
If you are looking for evidence of her corruption read Judicialwatch.org's top 10 most corrupt politicians article.
She is number 1.
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

She even beat out Larry Craig after he tried to bone a cop in a public restroom. That is pretty impressive.

SamReeves
06-02-08, 21:31
I don't like getting personal, and I don't have all the details, but I get the impression that she only stayed with him because of her political ambitions. If she had stayed with him out of love, that would be totally different. However, it seems to me like she'd do anything just to gain power, and part of that led her to refuse to give up her husband's political connections.

Exactly. That's what bugs me most in Hillary's bid for President. The Clinton affair still bugs me a lot. It says that she might allow a lot of crap to go across her desk and let them get away with it.

I can feel this debate is going to get ugly since the Clinton affair has hit a sore nerve, so I'll exit and leave you guys to continue. :wve:

myrmaad
06-02-08, 21:31
You're being kind to me. I do agree, though, that it's not enough to base a vote upon. (And shouldn't be.) But it is, enough, for me, to elevate my opinion of her, regardless of her motives. I am a strong supporter of marriage and family over divorce and the destruction of family.

If you are looking for evidence of her corruption read Judicialwatch.org's top 10 most corrupt politicians article.
She is number 1.

I actually took the time to read that website, I was unimpressed with the criteria posted for her high corruption rating, especially since the site is overseen by a man who would qualify as highly corrupt, himself. He faked his college degree for one thing.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 21:39
You're being kind to me.

Should I be mean? :p Anyhow, I just wanted to be clear that anything I say about Hillary is only meant to apply to Hillary. I don't like unintentionally offending people.

I do agree, though, that it's not enough to base a vote upon. (And shouldn't be.) But it is, enough, for me, to elevate my opinion of her, regardless of her motives. I am a strong supporter of marriage and family over divorce and the destruction of family.

I don't have any personal experience with cheating (or relationships, for that matter :p My only boyfriend so far dumped me after 2 months...). I don't have any specific details about Hillary and Bill's relationship, either. I was just basing my guess on Hillary's public actions and personality. I haven't really seen anything so far that shows real affection between the two, whereas I have seen Hillary willing to do anything to gain power. For example, just recently she got her name on the ballot in states where the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign (those states held their primaries too early in defiance of the Democratic party). Now that she obviously won since she was the only name on the ballot, she is saying those votes should count :rolleyes:

myrmaad
06-02-08, 21:48
That situation should, and I feel will, have an impact on the final nomination. Fair is fair. I have felt the last two elections were unfair, in retrospect, there are several unfair factors allowed to go on in elections.

For example, IF Ross Perot had backed out of the race prior to the general election in (92 I believe), then most likely George HW Bush would have had a significantly better chance of taking it. I believe some of the extreme Hostility aimed at the Clinton's was in response to the bitterly perceived unfairness of that.

Would the country have been better off in the long run if it had been more fair? Would it have been more fair ultimately, to eliminate a potential candidate because he was clearly a spoiler (consider what's happening now in the republican party).

IF McCain does win the nom and then the presidency, how will that same perception of unfairness taint his ability to act?

I don't think it is a good precedent to have an elected official where the election is viewed as rigged, or unfairly run. I believe it is obvious that my current bitterness over the perceived unfairness (and I'm not alone) of the 2000 election has tainted and hindered the GW Bush presidency, it also sets a bad precedent when the leader of the free world is tainted with that brush.


Furthermore, about Campaign-Finance Reform. I cannot for the life of me understand why Corporations should have any right to "free speech". Free speech is the right of individuals, and corporations will never be such. Individuals are human beings whose power and reach is limited by their short life spans. As human beings they constitutionally have the right to the pursuit of happiness, I do not think any such individual rights should have ever been extended to corporations. In view of that, how does McCain-Feingold in any way impact an individual's right to free speech?

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 21:56
That situation should, and I feel will, have an impact on the final nomination. Fair is fair.

Can you elaborate please? How do you think the Democratic party should handle these states where Hillary won due to breaking her agreement not to campaign there?

I don't think it is a good precedent to have an elected official where the election is viewed as rigged, or unfairly run.

Then we need to straighten out Florida! :p I'm kind of joking, but they do seem to have an unacceptable number of voting irregularities and whatnot.



Incidentally, I just remembered that Eddie Haskell said he's working on Obama's campaign. Eddie, please tell me that Obama isn't going to let Hillary take the delegates from Michigan or Florida.

USP
06-02-08, 21:58
Judicial Watch is actually pretty well respected.
I just googled the president, all I could find was that the previous president sued him 2 years ago saying he did not have a degree.

Anyways, Hillary is probably the biggest gun grabber in Washington. There is a saying amongst gun owners: "I'll give up my guns after I give up my ammo."

myrmaad
06-02-08, 22:01
During the Convention these issues should be sorted out. Brought up and corrected and worked out amicably.

As far as Florida, or Ohio, etc, absolutely they should be ironed out. I seriously do not understand why a paper trail would be so hard. We don't have a paper trail here in Delaware, and it bothers me. The solution is as simple as the machines being fitted with a mechanical counter that spits out a receipt. At the end of the night the number of votes of the mechanized count need to match the number of votes in the electronic count.


USP, do you realize how easy it is to prove you are a graduate? Very hard to prove if you weren't though. So why didn't he just present the proof? Hmm, maybe cause there wasn't any. Sorry that's just logic.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 22:10
Furthermore, about Campaign-Finance Reform. I cannot for the life of me understand why Corporations should have any right to "free speech". Free speech is the right of individuals, and corporations will never be such. Individuals are human beings whose power and reach is limited by their short life spans. As human beings they constitutionally have the right to the pursuit of happiness, I do not think any such individual rights should have ever been extended to corporations. In view of that, how does McCain-Feingold in any way impact an individual's right to free speech?

Why should the government be able to dictate who can spend how much money advertising for which issues? Corporations are composed of individuals. I think they have just as much right to speak about issues that affect them as they have a right to try to convince people to buy their products. What I want is absolute crystal clarity in where all of the money is coming from. McCain-Feingold does not fix this issue. From what I've seen, it actually encourages people to hide where the money is from because they don't want to admit to having broken the restrictions.

During the Convention these issues should be sorted out. Brought up and corrected and worked out amicably.

As far as Florida, or Ohio, etc, absolutely they should be ironed out. I seriously do not understand why a paper trail would be so hard. We don't have a paper trail here in Delaware, and it bothers me. The solution is as simple as the machines being fitted with a mechanical counter that spits out a receipt. At the end of the night the number of votes of the mechanized count need to match the number of votes in the electronic count.

But how do you iron it out when one of the major candidates agreed not to campaign there? As I understand it, it isn't an issue of the votes not matching up. It's an issue of both candidates agreeing with the Democratic party not to campaign in these states since the party would not count the delegates, then Hillary went and campaigned there anyway, now she's saying her victory should count. It's impossible to tell who would have really won if both candidates had campaigned. I suppose they could hold another primary within the accepted time-frame, but I can't see that ending amicably either :(

myrmaad
06-02-08, 22:18
Jennifer, the two things haven't got that much to do with each other.

The Convention is not beholden to the delegate count. The convention could split them equally between the two candidates, or the candidate with less delegates over all could voluntarily allow the candidate who has a closer number to the required amount to have them. I really don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle.

And certainly in Ohio and Florida, there has been a whole lot of trouble with votes matching the counts. How do you get a couple of thousand votes out of a district with only a few hundred registered voters. Oh Ho I see that as a HUGE problem.

However, if there is a landslide victory this problem becomes less a burning issue.

I'll think about the Campaign Finance Reform and get back to you. I really don't think that Big Corporate Money should have an unfair advantage over the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Apparently it has a had some favorable impact on soft money. From what I understand, it seems like it helped to stop some of the spreading of lies.. the restoration of TRUTH IN ADVERTISING would be a significant step forward from where we are though. Free speech apparently protects the rights of people to tell lies. If we had had some of these Big Corporate Money campaigns in the 1700s we'd still be under the rulership of Britain, in my opinion.

Eddie Haskell
06-02-08, 22:27
Can you elaborate please? How do you think the Democratic party should handle these states where Hillary won due to breaking her agreement not to campaign there?



Then we need to straighten out Florida! :p I'm kind of joking, but they do seem to have an unacceptable number of voting irregularities and whatnot.



Incidentally, I just remembered that Eddie Haskell said he's working on Obama's campaign. Eddie, please tell me that Obama isn't going to let Hillary take the delegates from Michigan or Florida.

WAS working for, my health took a nose dive and has kept me in the house. I do make calls for them when asked. But in answer to your question according to party rules, those delegates do not exist. Unless they go all out to screw Obama (and they won't), that will not be a worry. The super-delegates can always switch their affiliation. And you can bet they will once the writing is on the wall.

Judicial Watch is actually pretty well respected.
I just googled the president, all I could find was that the previous president sued him 2 years ago saying he did not have a degree.

Anyways, Hillary is probably the biggest gun grabber in Washington. There is a saying amongst gun owners: "I'll give up my guns after I give up my ammo."

This will never effect me, I have a license to carry in every state...:)

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 22:57
Jennifer, the two things haven't got that much to do with each other.

The Convention is not beholden to the delegate count. The convention could split them equally between the two candidates, or the candidate with less delegates over all could voluntarily allow the candidate who has a closer number to the required amount to have them. I really don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle.

And certainly in Ohio and Florida, there has been a whole lot of trouble with votes matching the counts. How do you get a couple of thousand votes out of a district with only a few hundred registered voters. Oh Ho I see that as a HUGE problem.

However, if there is a landslide victory this problem becomes less a burning issue.

I was thinking mainly of Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. If there were irregularities in Florida, then those need to be sorted out before the real election. Florida's primary delegates shouldn't count anyway since the state broke the rules and held the primary early. As for Ohio, they didn't have their primary yet as far as I know.

I'll think about the Campaign Finance Reform and get back to you. I really don't think that Big Corporate Money should have an unfair advantage over the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Apparently it has a had some favorable impact on soft money. From what I understand, it seems like it helped to stop some of the spreading of lies.. the restoration of TRUTH IN ADVERTISING would be a significant step forward from where we are though. Free speech apparently protects the rights of people to tell lies. If we had had some of these Big Corporate Money campaigns in the 1700s we'd still be under the rulership of Britain, in my opinion.

My view is that as long as it's always crystal clear who is financing an ad, if the people are stupid enough to fall for it then they deserve what they get. I do not think that restricting how money can be spent will solve the issue. I think it's better to make sure that everyone knows what's going on and then let them decide if they believe an ad considering the agenda behind it.

WAS working for, my health took a nose dive and has kept me in the house. I do make calls for them when asked. But in answer to your question according to party rules, those delegates do not exist. Unless they go all out to screw Obama (and they won't), that will not be a worry. The super-delegates can always switch their affiliation. And you can bet they will once the writing is on the wall.

Sorry to hear about your health and I hope you get better soon :) Thanks for clarifying the Democratic party rules for me :)

myrmaad
06-02-08, 23:09
I was thinking mainly of Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. If there were irregularities in Florida, then those need to be sorted out before the real election. Florida's primary delegates shouldn't count anyway since the state broke the rules and held the primary early. As for Ohio, they didn't have their primary yet as far as I know.
I was referring to recent general election discrepancies.



My view is that as long as it's always crystal clear who is financing an ad, if the people are stupid enough to fall for it then they deserve what they get. I do not think that restricting how money can be spent will solve the issue. I think it's better to make sure that everyone knows what's going on and then let them decide if they believe an ad considering the agenda behind it. There is a widespread belief that they can't put something on TV unless it's true. I've seen commercials for diet pills reiterate this "fact" often. Trouble is, it used to be true, until the 70s.

Neither of them will jeopardize the party. It will work out ok. I'm of the mind that I will vote for either of them in the final analysis.

Jensie17
06-02-08, 23:14
Hillary.

Ward Dragon
06-02-08, 23:23
I was referring to recent general election discrepancies.

Oh, I misunderstood :o

There is a widespread belief that they can't put something on TV unless it's true. I've seen commercials for diet pills reiterate this "fact" often. Trouble is, it used to be true, until the 70s.

I think it would be a good idea to require all ads to provide some measure of proof for their claims, especially for health-related products. Concerning political advertisements, it would be good as long as the burden of proof required was the same for everybody. (I wouldn't want a biased committee which lets one group put whatever they want but tells another that it doesn't have enough proof no matter what.) Just to be clear, I think if an ad makes it clear that it's an opinion, then they don't have to prove it.

Neither of them will jeopardize the party. It will work out ok. I'm of the mind that I will vote for either of them in the final analysis.

I just can't see Hillary withdrawing or stepping down for any reason, and I don't think Obama should allow himself to be taken advantage of. That's why I have a bad feeling that things may get ugly.

BoyTRaider
06-02-08, 23:29
Barack Obama all the way for me! :tmb:

Melonie Tomb Raider
06-02-08, 23:45
What a phenomenally "uninformed" statement, let alone the epitome of sexist.


How is that sexist? :confused: I'm pretty mind boggled trying to figure that one out.

And what's the big surprise after getting married? Your significant otehr is bound to cheat on you no matter what?

Hillary really didn't seem affected at all by his affairs; moreover, she's had her fair share as well. I won't quote the vulgar statement that Bill Clinton said himself; however, simply stating, he claims that Hillary loves women more than he does.

I won't go on saying that he was right, for all I know, he could have been lying. But if it is the case, then she's cheated on him as well.

If you can't have a healthy household, you absolutely cannot run a healthy country. When I think about Hillary Clinton's family, I think chaos. Why should we expect anything less if she's running a country?

And again, how on earth anyone could consider that sexist is absolutely beyond me. I would say the exact same thing if Bill Clinton was mirraculously able to run again.

I'm not saying the affair was her fault, though. Many women are cheated on, and it's not their fault. It's a very sad thing, and I have sympathy for them; however, you have to take these things more serious when the particular woman is trying to run your country. She didn't seem to handle the situation so well. In fact... she didn't really seem to care at all.

myrmaad
06-02-08, 23:56
I think the big surprise is that You Cannot Control your spouse. People, even good people, cheat for the most inane reasons, it's not a sensible act. The betrayed spouse is not accountable for the infidel's actions. And it's been a fact in our society that the blame is laid at the feet of the betrayed spouse, as if his cheating was a result of anything she did: "she let herself go", or "she was a *****", or "he didn't feel loved". In fact, men in a position of power tend to be seen as more attractive thereby more of a target. That does not excuse him, but blaming Hilary is just the height of insensitivity, and I was being extremely kind and generous when I characterized it as "uninformed".

Most men, when caught cheating will say dumb crap like your example. I heard those rumors but I didn't believe he actually said it.

Chaos? You must be privy to much more inside information than I am. I'd like to know exactly where and how you got your inside information.

Sexist because you were not speaking of Bill, you were specifically talking about Hilary, and that is an sexist saw whenever the subject of marital infidelity comes up.
"If he cheated, it must be her fault." And that's utter rubbish.

I do believe I addressed this adequately in my earlier posts though.

USP
07-02-08, 00:08
She is a lesbo though.

Edit- Although she would still probably bone Marx.

Eddie Haskell
07-02-08, 00:14
She is a lesbo though.

Edit- Although she would still probably bone Marx.

Good Lord, enough is enough. :mad:

PARANOIA
07-02-08, 00:34
She is a lesbo though.

Edit- Although she would still probably bone Marx.

Nice one. :D

USP
07-02-08, 00:41
Good Lord, enough is enough. :mad:

:D ;)

calico25
07-02-08, 00:51
one thing is for sure, we americans are in for another crappy 4 years...all the candidates really are worthless.

Cochrane
07-02-08, 07:41
She is a lesbo though.

Edit- Although she would still probably bone Marx.

There are statements you can make about presidential candidates that make them seem morally flawed, and there are statements you can make about presidential candidates that make you seem that way. Can you guess in which of these two categories this statement belongs?

Mona Sax
07-02-08, 10:19
Guys, let's keep at least some level of maturity and decency here. Homophobia's definitely where I draw the line. I'd like this discussion to continue in a respectful manner, otherwise I'm going to have to close it.

L.C
07-02-08, 13:39
Obama. If Hillary gets the nomination instead then I'd transfer my allegiance to her.I'm still torn between the two myself. Thank goodness I'll be able to vote in November, even though I reside in the UK. I feel sometimes like I'm voting for all of Europe, considering my views are very similar to those here, and feel quite fortunate to have perspective from outside the US as well as inside, and am glad I can see the bigger picture.

Clinton all the way :tmb: We need somebody to clean up the white house ;)I got this weird image of Bill in a frilly apron when I read that statement (sorry!), remembering how strong a first lady she was, and had a feeling that Bill knew his place in her household ;)

Idealist single female teenagers, mostly.Not sure if that's meant to be an insult or not, as though I have left my teenage years far behind, anything that gives the impression that I'm younger than my true age is always an ego-enhancer :)

Bush actually said in his first Presidential race that he thought that God wanted him to be President. That says enough.That statement is even scarier than your avatar! :yik:

Guys, let's keep at least some level of maturity and decency here. Homophobia's definitely where I draw the line. I'd like this discussion to continue in a respectful manner, otherwise I'm going to have to close it.Sorry, Mona, hope my bit of frivolity isn't the last straw for you :o

Eddie Haskell
07-02-08, 15:40
There is one more point to be made about the Obama/Clinton choice. In all of the caucuses (not primaries), Obama wins these, and big. Why? Because when everyone discusses the pros and cons of all the issues they (in the end) understand that he is the one that WILL win in November. Many of the Hillary supporters at these caucuses change their votes when confronted with this reality. Hillary has a lot of negatives and would need to somehow shed these prior to the election. Not very likely when the conservative hate machine will be gassed up and ready to go. The ammunition is already there.

myrmaad
07-02-08, 15:54
Do you ever watch Washington Journal on C-Span, Eddie?

Their open phone system, and non-partisan approach appeals across the board. The running commentary from ad hoc callers offers many opportunities for amusement and edification. Many callers (republican, independent, and democrat alike) preface their remarks with "Thank God for C-Span!"

Anyway among this morning's opinions put forth was the sentiment that Barack has no chance to win in November.

As I said before hubby is a staunch supporter of Barack, but I found this interesting:
But one of the most intriguing finding in the surveys of voters leaving the polls across the nation on Tuesday was when they arrived at their final decision. Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/politics/07dems.html?ref=politics)

Eddie Haskell
07-02-08, 16:06
Do you ever watch Washington Journal on C-Span, Eddie?

Their open phone system, and non-partisan approach appeals across the board. The running commentary from ad hoc callers offers many opportunities for amusement and edification. Many callers (republican, independent, and democrat alike) preface their remarks with "Thank God for C-Span!"

Anyway among this morning's opinions put forth was the sentiment that Barack has no chance to win in November.

If he is the nominee, we will be able to get a gauge on how much racism still exists in this country. Hillary and Barack will get the regular east coast/midwest/west coast democrats. But it is in the other areas of the US that the battles will take place. Can the southern white democrats vote for Hillary with all of the demonizing that she has endured? Will they be able to vote for a black man for President? If McCain is the Republican nominee, will these southern white democrats vote for him? And what about the Hispanics? What will they do?

All of my southern relatives and friends (black and white) would never vote for Hillary. They are, well prejudiced against her. They will however vote for Mr. Obama, or at least consider it. My Hispanic friends like both. If the nominee for the Republicans is not McCain than it is a done deal. Both Clinton and Obama will defeat any of the others easily. But McCain represents an option for many in the middle.

Edit:
Obama has raised $7 Million dollars in 48 hours after Super Tuesday. That bodes well.

USP
07-02-08, 20:12
There are statements you can make about presidential candidates that make them seem morally flawed, and there are statements you can make about presidential candidates that make you seem that way. Can you guess in which of these two categories this statement belongs?

You need a sense of humor. I can assume that you are the one kid in the group of friends that the others do not really like.

PARANOIA
07-02-08, 20:15
You need a sense of humor. I can assume that you are the one kid in the group of friends that the others do not really like.

You forget, USP. You're in a liberal forum. tlr online is a liberal. All of the moderators are liberals. You're fighting city hall.

USP
07-02-08, 20:18
You forget, USP. You're in a liberal forum. tlr online is a liberal. All of the moderators are liberals. You're fighting city hall.

I live on the border of NW DC. There aren't too many "conservatives" here. (I use that word with caution)

Draco
07-02-08, 20:43
Go Ron Paul!

GodOfLight
07-02-08, 20:47
Even though i do not see myself as a republican i like ron paul the most. he is the only candidate who wants to remain loyal to the constitution, and he is also the only candidate who finally wants to bring the troops back home.

However, i know ron paul does not ultimatley have a chance, so I am either hoping for Clinton or Obama... either of the two will be better then one of the other republican candidates imo.

USP
07-02-08, 21:03
He will win the brokered convention... if one happens.
I will PM you why.

Quasimodo
07-02-08, 22:40
You forget, USP. You're in a liberal forum. tlr online is a liberal. All of the moderators are liberals. You're fighting city hall.

Certainly feels that way. But hey, everyone's in the minority somewhere.

GodOfLight
07-02-08, 22:42
this is a liberal forum? really? i honestly feel that the more posts i read in general chat make it sound like the majority of members are right wing :vlol:

Melonie Tomb Raider
07-02-08, 22:46
this is a liberal forum? really? i honestly feel that the more posts i read in general chat make it sound like the majority of members are right wing :vlol:

Is that a joke? O.o :p

Quasimodo
07-02-08, 22:47
this is a liberal forum? really? i honestly feel that the more posts i read in general chat make it sound like the majority of members are right wing :vlol:

Maybe you've just read posts written by the same group of right wingers over and over again?

Look at the poll. All the REP votes combined don't even come close to the votes accumulated by one of the DEM candidates.

Eddie Haskell
07-02-08, 22:50
He will win the brokered convention... if one happens.
I will PM you why.

I can foresee no set of circumstances that the Republicans would place Paul as their nominee. Millions of votes have been cast, and he is getting next to none of them. Romney maybe, but no way Ron Paul.

GodOfLight
07-02-08, 22:53
Maybe you've just read posts written by the same group of right wingers over and over again?

Look at the poll. All the REP votes combined don't even come close to the votes accumulated by one of the DEM candidates.

Is that a joke? O.o :p

actually no. i was dead serious.

perhaps it's just that most of the liberal members on this forum don't express their views as passionatley and expressivley as the right wingers.

i may not be a republican, and i may have great distaste for most of the right wingers and conservative posters on this forum. but i gotta give you guys credit for something: you know how to word and formulate your beliefs that you are so passionate about and you give great and provocative long posts.

most of the liberals here on the other hand (not all though... there are some exceptions. i consider myself a liberal too) do not post the most interesting passionate posts or view points. just by looking at this thread there appears to be more "ZOMG KEWLNESS" coming from those and "ZOMG I WANT HILARY JUST CAUSES SHES A WOMAN LOLS"... which imo is really just sad.

AmericanAssassin
07-02-08, 22:55
I don't understand why there are six candidates up there now... The race is now basically between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain... :p

Vote for HILLARY CLINTON! :yah:

USP
07-02-08, 23:00
I can foresee no set of circumstances that the Republicans would place Paul as their nominee. Millions of votes have been cast, and he is getting next to none of them. Romney maybe, but no way Ron Paul.

We shall see then.

Quasimodo
07-02-08, 23:13
actually no. i was dead serious.

perhaps it's just that most of the liberal members on this forum don't express their views as passionatley and expressivley as the right wingers.

i may not be a republican, and i may have great distaste for most of the right wingers and conservative posters on this forum. but i gotta give you guys credit for something: you know how to word and formulate your beliefs that you are so passionate about and you give great and provocative long posts.

most of the liberals here on the other hand (not all though... there are some exceptions. i consider myself a liberal too) do not post the most interesting passionate posts or view points. just by looking at this thread there appears to be more "ZOMG KEWLNESS" coming from those and "ZOMG I WANT HILARY JUST CAUSES SHES A WOMAN LOLS"... which imo is really just sad.

Still, you could count the number of vocal right wingers on this forum using your fingers and still have fingers left. Including the not-so-active posters, I doubt you'd ever break 30.

I also think it's safe to say that most people on this forums are still in their teens (and a growing number of tweens); maybe the left wing appeals to young people more than the right wing? That could be the less elaborative folk you're complaining about.

For whatever reason, the U.S. is becoming more moderate, or liberal - depending on how you like to look at it. I'd love to hear any theories anyone has on this. There's a fair chance we'll be seeing a President Obama or President Clinton in the future.

GodOfLight
07-02-08, 23:17
you are right about the age difference quasimodo.

well, as a certain someone once said:

"any young person who isn't liberal doesn't have a heart, and any old person who isn't conservative doesn't have a brain" :D

Quasimodo
07-02-08, 23:27
you are right about the age difference quasimodo.

well, as a certain someone once said:

"any young person who isn't liberal doesn't have a heart, and any old person who isn't conservative doesn't have a brain" :D

:eek: I almost posted that exact same quote, but I didn't want to offend anyone :p

Andariel
07-02-08, 23:29
It’s effective for like-minded people to debate on issues because they can come to agreements. Polar opposites such as liberals and conservatives debating are like talking to, not with, a brick wall. There are hardly ever any consensual agreements and it’s understandable.

Twilight
07-02-08, 23:31
Hilary Clinton. not because she's a woman, but i agree with most that she says and i think she can handle it.

Quasimodo
07-02-08, 23:34
It’s effective for like-minded people to debate on issues because they can come to agreements. Polar opposites such as liberals and conservatives debating are like talking to, not with, a brick wall. There are hardly ever any consensual agreements and it’s understandable.

Maybe if we understood what draws each other to their political affiliation, we wouldn't keep thinking/saying "Stupid gun crazy right-winger" or "What do you expect, he/she's a Liberal" :p Hmm, there's a thread idea...

Andariel
07-02-08, 23:41
That would be a great thread for those that don’t know much about politics.

Eddie Haskell
07-02-08, 23:49
Maybe if we understood what draws each other to their political affiliation, we wouldn't keep thinking/saying "Stupid gun crazy right-winger" or "What do you expect, he/she's a Liberal" :p Hmm, there's a thread idea...

It wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for the hateful diatribe that talk radio has been spewing for years, and the corporate interests who see to it that the divide is maintained.

When I was a young college man, the debate was real and generally fruitful. I was a liberal of course, but I debated the conservatives respectfully and they did so in kind. Sometimes on certain issues we changed each others minds, and other times we dug in our heels. But there was none of this demonization, this began with the start of the pointed (ie right wing/left wing) radio shows that sought to not only spell out the positions that they themselves espoused, but to demonize the other side as well. Radio in my day had editorials, but nothing like the all day garbage that exists today. Eventually the demonization process became the whole show for these programs. Listeners heard a plethora of half-truths and sometimes outright lies. Words became altered and used to label in a hateful and incorrect way (liberal for instance). Much of the rabble that listen become polarized and unable to keep an open mind.

Sure, the better educated and the open minded can laugh much of this off, but for many they are swayed by this sad rhetoric. It is not America at our best, that's for sure.

Andariel
08-02-08, 00:02
If I had to choose a Republican it would be Ron Paul. Unfortunately, he is the only Republican dealing with the issues of the economy and health care. For some ridiculous reason he has been ignored. I am really surprised McCain is getting as much support as he is. Have today’s Republicans not learned anything in the last 8 years with Bush?

Why do a vast majority of them want to stay in Iraq? The war was illegal and all reasons for starting it have turned out to be outright lies from the beginning and yet he gets such strong support. I figure the supporters of him are unsympathetic towards hard working low to middle class people. That and/or ignorant, foolish, or plain evil. lol :p

USP
08-02-08, 01:06
This is how most political discussions ultimately end:
"You communist son of a *****"
"Suck my *******, you anarchist evil capitalist pig"

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 02:21
It wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for the hateful diatribe that talk radio has been spewing for years, and the corporate interests who see to it that the divide is maintained.

That is all the proof I need to confirm that we are talking to no consensual end.

The war was illegal and all reasons for starting it have turned out to be outright lies from the beginning and yet he gets such strong support.

Saddam used chemical weapons on his people. Chemical weapons are WMD's. QED.

Eddie Haskell
08-02-08, 02:50
That is all the proof I need to confirm that we are talking to no consensual end.


I don't believe that you understood the point. I was speaking to the quality of the debate, not the issues themselves. In my college days (the 70's), there was real debate and exchange. Sure, there were a few who were fervently insane, but mostly it was agree to disagree and move on.

Nowadays withall of the radio, tv and bloggers shouting, yelling and dividing us with a cacophony of bs and venom, issues are not even discussed because we can't get beyond buzzwords, stereotyping and catchphrases. It is very sad.

The truth is that agreement (you and I, Republicans/Democrats, etc) can happen, might happen or won't happen on a plethora of issues and opinions. But they certainly will not happen if one does not even listen to the other. In my college days we did that.

TRexbait
08-02-08, 03:53
Didn't Romney leave the group of republican cndidates... In' prettey sure that he is, I think the poll neads to be edited

OBAMA ALL THE WAY!!!:jmp:

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 09:29
Yup, Romney's out. For the time being, at least, officially it's just a 'break'. That way he'll keep his delegates, and he can make a comeback in case McCain stumbles.
Saddam used chemical weapons on his people. Chemical weapons are WMD's. QED.
Hitler started WWII. Does that mean Germany will start more wars in the future? No. The Bush administration's reason was that Saddam had (not had had) WMDs and thus was a threat to other countries, which turned out to be wrong. Now I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a tyrant and a mass murderer, but the fact that the US government started a war based on a lie remains.

myrmaad
08-02-08, 12:49
Chief strategist Mark Penn briefed the donors on the Feb 5 results, noting that Clinton wound up winning Massachusetts and New Jersey by double digit margins. He said he estimated that the campaign had approximately 53% of the delegates it needs to win the nomination. (With Florida and Michigan factored in, the number would rise only slightly -- to 54%.) Penn conceded that there'd be "bumps int he road over the next week or two" --- he's referring to the Potomac primary next week and the Louisiana Democratic caucus (although Clinton today won the endorsement of Sen. Blanche Lincoln). But "we have double digit leads in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_campaign_becomes_trans.php

myrmaad
08-02-08, 13:10
Saddam used chemical weapons on his people. Chemical weapons are WMD's. QED.

http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=strategic+studies+army+war+college+halabja&btnG=Search

tranniversary119
08-02-08, 13:18
Barack Hussien Obama. I mean come on Sadam Hussien? I really think he's a bad choice for a president IMO. Hilary has more expierence and did a great job in New York as a senator. And I'm betting she'll win. ;)

myrmaad
08-02-08, 13:24
I guess you'd judge him differently if his name was "George Washington Obama"? :whi:

PARANOIA
08-02-08, 13:26
I guess you'd judge him differently if his name was "George Washington Obama"? :whi:

That is a racist stereotypical comment. ;)

myrmaad
08-02-08, 13:28
Give me a break, I was drawing a conclusion based on the conclusion drawn, facetiously to boot.

tranniversary119
08-02-08, 13:29
I guess you'd judge him differently if his name was "George Washington Obama"? :whi:

Nope, I still wouldn't vote for him. And it's not because he's black he has no expierence in the white house and like i said somebody who has Hussien in there name is not a chance this country should take. Hilary is the best bet and she has my vote *well my parents* :p

Mona Sax
08-02-08, 16:23
Yeah, I'm sure our names have an impact on our personalities. We can choose them, after all. I'd also not vote for cross-eyed people - who guarantees they'd see the next terrorist threat coming?

Cochrane
08-02-08, 16:34
Nope, I still wouldn't vote for him. And it's not because he's black he has no expierence in the white house and like i said somebody who has Hussien in there name is not a chance this country should take. Hilary is the best bet and she has my vote *well my parents* :p

No experience is one thing, but the name, that has to be the most... unique reason to reject someone. I'd also like to advise against John Sydney McCain, because first of all, we can't know whether someone with that middle name really has America's best interest at heart, and his last name means there's an increased chance he'll kill his brother. I'm certain similar things can be said about Clinton if you look long enough, I was just too lazy.

Eddie Haskell
10-02-08, 03:10
It looks like a clean sweep tonight for Obama in Washington State, Nebraska and Louisiana. Huckabee is doing fine as well, could be very embarrassing to McCain if this continues.

Quasimodo
10-02-08, 03:15
It looks like a clean sweep tonight for Obama in Washington State, Nebraska and Louisiana. Huckabee is doing fine as well, could be very embarrassing to McCain if this continues.

Wonderful news :tmb:

USP
10-02-08, 05:03
brokered convention baby
From here on out McCain is redubbed McMillenium Man-- in reference to his preferred length of occupation of Iraq

Trevor_M92
19-02-08, 10:02
I've now decided to support Mike Huckabee :)




What the hell?

MrBear
19-02-08, 10:11
And it's not because he's black he has no expierence in the white house

Actually, I see that as a positive thing ;) that's why I like Obama, he's young and therefore hopefully not corrupted like most politicians who've been in the game long enough..

Minty Mouth
19-02-08, 10:33
Im not american, so i dont really care, but I voted Obama on this thread, mainly because i think he would be a nice change :tmb:

myrmaad
19-02-08, 10:40
For those who believe the Tax and Spend myth, here is some relevant information.
In the short term, tax cuts have not led to spending cuts, they have led to spending binges. This was true in the early Reagan years, when spending grew from 20.7% of GDP in 1980 to 23.5% of GDP in 1983, the highest level of spending since World War II. It has also been true in the Bush years, where spending has grown from 18.4% of GDP in 2000 to 20.3% of GDP in 2006. It is a myth that tax cuts lead to lower government spending.

The tax increases in 1993 were accompanied by a relative decrease in spending, from 22.1% of GDP in 1992 to 18.4% of GDP in 2000. It is also a myth that tax increases lead to higher spending. I hope these myths will not gain much traction during the presidential campaign, despite your best efforts.

Government spending is the true measure of the size of government, not taxes. Whether the spending is supported in the short run by taxes or by deficits, in the long run it will have to be paid for by taxes. Absent a recession, it is generally better to pay through current taxes rather than borrowing—it avoids the inflationary pressures of deficit spending. At least those are the lessons I recall from the WSJ editorial page back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s when I was in college. The economics haven’t changed since then, only the politics—President Carter and the $75 billion deficit of 1980 were the issue at the time.

It is true that the budget math of the candidates doesn’t add up. That has been true for as long as I can remember. According to David Stockman, Reagan’s advisors forgot to factor in the planned decrease in inflation, leading to lower than projected revenues and increased deficits in the early 1980’s. No one would have predicted the fiscal discipline of the Clinton years based upon the Clinton campaign promises of 1992. Clearly, President Bush’s budget math has never added up, among other reasons because he has always left out the cost of the war. Probably the only candidates with relatively honest budget math in my memory were Ross Perot and Walter Mondale. The success of their candidacies is probably why few try copying their honesty. That Senators Clinton and Obama admit the need for higher taxes to pay for the current and projected levels of spending may be their downfall.

It will be an interesting debate this summer and fall. The candidates will have to defend their records and their proposals. Senator McCain is probably one of the only Republicans to have a good record on spending this decade—at least outside of spending on Iraq. He will undoubtedly promote that record during the campaign.

I suspect we will also hear more about Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz’s projections of the Iraq war costs as the debate moves forwards. He projected that the war costs would exceed $2 trillion in November 2006 before costs were further increased due to the surge. The cost of the war effort, and more specifically the current surge, will get much more attention in this campaign than it has to date.

We may also hear arguments in favor of divided government like we had in the 1990’s. While there are probably few fans of both President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich, I am certainly a fan of the results of that period—welfare reform, trade agreements, decreases in government spending, etc. As shown this decade, neither party can be trusted when they control all the branches of government. Since Democrats look poised to control Congress, perhaps this is another argument in favor of Senator McCain.

I look forward to an honest campaign between two quality candidates—either of whom will likely be a tremendous improvement over the current occupant and the fiscal irresponsibility of the last seven years.

Jack Croft
19-02-08, 11:34
Obama :D

Mad Tony
19-02-08, 11:37
What the hell?Yeah, I'm supporting Mike Huckabee. :)

myrmaad
19-02-08, 11:44
Can you explain why? I'm curious.

Mad Tony
19-02-08, 11:45
Can you explain why? I'm curious.I agree with his policies. I think I said that back in the start of the thread, not sure though.
Besides, the only other Republican left in the race is John McCain, and I really don't like his immigration policies.

myrmaad
19-02-08, 11:53
Personally, I have never found a candidate on which I agree with their entire campaign platform, so I'm actually asking which specific platform policies do you agree with?

Mad Tony
19-02-08, 12:03
Personally, I have never found a candidate on which I agree with their entire campaign platform, so I'm actually asking which specific platform policies do you agree with?Well, from looking HERE (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/mike-huckabee/), there isn't anything I disagree on (doesn't mean I support everything there either). However, there are probably some things about him that I disagree with.

myrmaad
19-02-08, 12:33
I think it might be a safe assumption that one of your top concerns is the abortion issue, since it is at the top of his list. (Both on that page, and from what I understand about his stance.)

You do realize that he has a poor record on tax policy while he was governor of Arkansas? I appreciate your American-sympathetic sentiment, still can't help but be aware of the fact that you aren't directly affected by American economic issues.

The Huckabee phenomenon is a grass-root candidacy mostly propelled by the "Christian-Right" portion of the Republican base. Serious republican commentators (I'm speaking of the non-radio personality types because, frankly, the personalities are not being taken seriously in Washington these days) tend to see some problems with continuing integrating theocracy with the conservative agenda.

This article (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20080218-9999-1n18huck.html)speaks to that, but it is one of many I'm seeing.


PS - J. Peter Freire is the guest on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, he's a managing editor at the conservative American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/). These are the type of conservative commentators that actually garner respect, (but still get criticism from McCain supporters).

Trevor_M92
23-02-08, 02:30
Yeah, I'm supporting Mike Huckabee. :)



He won't make it, and you're English so what do you know about American politics.

tranniversary119
23-02-08, 02:32
Actually, I see that as a positive thing ;) that's why I like Obama, he's young and therefore hopefully not corrupted like most politicians who've been in the game long enough..

I guess you can say that we do need somebody knew, But Hilary actually does well in New York, alot of people love her.

Yeah, I'm sure our names have an impact on our personalities. We can choose them, after all. I'd also not vote for cross-eyed people - who guarantees they'd see the next terrorist threat coming?
I don't care whatever his personality is but Hussein brings a red flag for me and my family That's not the only reason I don't want him as our president. I I just don't think he's right for this country. :rolleyes: *NOT RACIST

Ward Dragon
23-02-08, 02:37
Serious republican commentators (I'm speaking of the non-radio personality types because, frankly, the personalities are not being taken seriously in Washington these days) tend to see some problems with continuing integrating theocracy with the conservative agenda.

None of the radio commentators I have heard have supported Huckabee or wanted candidates to campaign on religious issues :confused:

spikejones
23-02-08, 03:15
why no anarchy choice?

dreamless
23-02-08, 04:06
why no anarchy choice?

i don't think he's running for president

TR 4 LIFE
23-02-08, 07:02
Obama!! :D and also...I hate one of the other republican candidates!!
(I think it's John McCain) that's a frickin racist!!!!!!! he's worse than Bush!!!

myrmaad
23-02-08, 07:44
None of the radio commentators I have heard have supported Huckabee or wanted candidates to campaign on religious issues :confused:

I wouldn't know.