View Full Version : Presidential Election '08
Rockstarr
08-22-2008, 04:51 AM
Well, I saw this place starting dying down, thought I'd throw in a good topic that is going on now. Well, with election day getting closer, and Obama and McCain choosing vice-presidents. What do you all think about each candidate and who do you think should be elected?
P.S. I am going to request of the mods, that if anyone posts something like "I vote Obama because Republicans suck because Bush sucks," etc. that they are removed. This is a serious topic, and I would rather see in depth answers from those who pay attention to this instead of jump on a bandwagon or just hate on someone. Thank you.
Debate on! :D
Backfire
08-24-2008, 12:29 AM
My view on these elections:
There are two main things bothering me about McCain: First of all he's someone who likes to solve problems by using military force, not good.. What if McCain had to have solved the Russia-Georgia conflict?
Second poinnt is that he is too conservative imo: No homosexual mariage is just one example of the many.
Obama is my favourite, he looks like a good guy with better intentions than McCain.
Statistics also say Obama is the favourite among the youth, and I think this is very important, since people like McCain won't be living for another 30 years, younger people will, and we're at a point where change is needed.
For the sake of the future generation of America and of the world, I hope it's going to be Obama and not McCain.
status.
08-24-2008, 12:57 AM
McCain and Romney.
Snowman
09-13-2008, 11:56 PM
I think this is one of the harder elections because they both have good and bad points in each and i dont seem to sure about any of them i think obama would be better though just because he seems to make more sense in his decisions
Statistics also say Obama is the favourite among the youth, and I think this is very important, since people like McCain won't be living for another 30 years, younger people will, and we're at a point where change is needed.[/b]
HAHAHAHA. lol that's horrible but rly funny at the same time.
Alright well i ahve had to write many papers opn this for my AP gov class, so here goes a long one:
McCain is too vague. Mainly in his presidentail acceptance speech. You saw Obama stating how he was going to cut taxes. BUt McCain kind of dodged a lot of it. Mainly because if he talks about past governmental experiences and desisions he automatically gonna link himself with Geaorge W. Bush. Stats show that 90% of the time he supported bush's desisions. SO that basically counted out 90% of his governement experience whihc is why he talked about him being a POW so much. He focus on the passed mainly and him being a POW and war hero. Which is great, but last time i checked being held captive in hanoi doesn't certify you ready to run the country. I also was impressed by how little Obama mbashing McCain did. He tried to stick with the issues, and didn't bash obama a ton which is good because he is sticking to his straight talk ideals.
Obama: Obama bothered me a bit in his acceptance speech. Mainly because right out of the gate after thanking everybody he rips on McCain. isn't this the same guy that was encouraging McCain to stick tot he issues and not bash eachother? he looks really two faced doing this.
Vice presidental choices were shocking. Well not obama's. Obama's weak point is foreign affairs. He has literally no clue, and so to counter-act this he choice Biden. Which was really smart.
McCain's choice makes me laugh. the only reason he chose her is because she's a girl. Executive expereince my ass. Being govenour of alaska is like being student council president. You basically do nothing. That part that freaks me out about this is that she only met McCain twice for a total of like 2 hours and 15 minutes. That isn't nearly enough time to decide whther or not you can run the country. Considering McCain is on his last leg and is like 80 years old almost, Theres a good chance he will die and she can be president if he is elected.
in the long run if i could vote i would vote obama. Just because choosing Palin was the most retarded thing i've ever seen in my life. I was surprised McCain didn't pick my mom or sister. They are just as qualified as they are. Aloe and revolution did McCain pick you guys for VP?
Nough said.
Obama needs to win the election.
People keep saying he doesn't have enough experience. McCain led what, a military task force? That's exactly what this country needs, more focus on military. [/sarcasm]
Being governor of Alaska is like being the smartest kid with down syndrome. There are oil and fish in Alaska and they pay their residents so they can drill more without any contradicting views. How many disastrous conflicts do they really have? Sarah Palin is also against homosexual marriage, pre-marital sex, and the teaching of sexual education in schools. Does she want to do a national broadcast on sexual education to the youth of America? I mean her daughter's 17 and already pregnant, I think she would definitely be the best suited candidate for the job. [/moresarcasm]
Then there's the whole deal of Sarah Palin taking Obama's "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" line way out of context. It's a popular political term in Washington. NPR has gone out of its way to show how idiotic her claim that the statement was a dis in response to her "the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is lipstick" line, meaning that the majority of the media is for Obama so she's not getting any positive publicity for that. I also find it hilarious that McCain supports Bush policies and his decisions, yet Sarah Palin has no idea what the Bush Doctrine even is.
Obama made a good decision choosing Joe Biden as his VP; he's admitted that he doesn't know about foreign affairs so that decision showed great amounts of maturity and logic on his behalf.
This part is just my opinion, but we definitely don't need more conservatives in the White House. It's like saying "America, the land of the free! ...That is, unless you're gay, old/sick (health care issues), or just open-minded". It's pathetic.
milosh
09-18-2008, 08:55 PM
Obama FTW :D
Rockstarr
09-28-2008, 07:34 PM
Who here saw the debate on Friday night?
Revolution 9
09-28-2008, 07:45 PM
obama
McCain's message of "change" basically is saying
"Elect me and my party because we are the only people who can fix what MY party fucked up"
And no I am not saying "obama because I don't like bush."
Who here saw the debate on Friday night?[/b]
Missed it, I was at a party. I DVR'd it though.
Who here heard about the big event with McCain ditching David Letterman an hour before recording time?
Revolution 9
09-29-2008, 12:00 AM
Missed it, I was at a party. I DVR'd it though.
Who here heard about the big event with McCain ditching David Letterman an hour before recording time?[/b]
I heard about it.
Letterman then preceded to talk about hum the entire show.
And parts of the next show. I've honestly never seen David Letterman mad, it was pretty intense.
myaim
09-29-2008, 05:42 AM
Obama gets my vote, one of the main reason is Paulin scares the living shit out of me, not because shes a girl its because shes gonna be the main person on foreign policy and not McCain, she doesn't even have a PASSPORT, but she said she has seen Russia, on an island in Alaska, scares the shit out of me. Another big problem with mccain is he said Iraq is a 100 year war, um... no im not voting for someone who agrees with bush on every account and yet says hes gonna change..
Also i find it funny mccain is lieing about obama.
Mehhht
09-30-2008, 04:58 AM
I'm kinda in the middle.
I'm not a big fan of either, but I think the majority of reasons about "why you should not like McCain" are fallacious. But there aren't a lot of incentives to like him as well...
I think Obama can either help, or destroy this country. I think that Democratic economics haven't been really "tested" and now that are economy is on the verge of collapsing, now might not be a good time to try. But it could be the help we need in this situation.
But I am more of a Republican. I think that gays should not be married, just because I have a religious respect towards marriage. I do, however, think they deserve the same rights and privileges that a man and women couple have. I just don't think they should be married. But this is another topic entirely.
Maybe I'm just trying to stimulate some arguments here, since this is a pretty one sided debate.
Here, I'll argue a bit....
This part is just my opinion, but we definitely don't need more conservatives in the White House. It's like saying "America, the land of the free! ...That is, unless you're gay, old/sick (health care issues), or just open-minded". It's pathetic.[/b]
I don't see how any of those you listed are not "free" people. They might not recieve extra benefits and help from conservatives. They still have all the rights that everyone else has.
But that's still a party issue... I guess I just can't support McCain enough to start arguments. Like I said, I'm kinda in the middle. But it does seem like I'm farther right than most of you :P
Freedom to do what you want, but not equality among citizens. Gays don't have the right to marry, or even adopt a child in some states.
They made it a law in Florida that a woman has to have an ultrasound before she can get an abortion. Do you know what that does to your psyche? It's scaring people into making bad decisions in their lives by making it extremely difficult, both in the ability to have the procedure done and emotionally, to get an abortion.
Even with the deal toll decreasing in Iraq, it is costing us as citizens billions of dollars. It's not even a real war anymore and yet we're still over there. The last thing we need is foreign conflict when our economy has dropped to the second lowest point in history, the first being 1929 during the Wall Street Crash (Black Thursday) and on during the Great Depression. Obviously what we need is someone who's completely pro-war.
As if that's not enough, he can't make up his mind on whether he supports Bush policies. He has said he does support them, but then gives multiple answers in multiple interviews on his views towards tax cuts and the such. He contradicts himself in most interviews if you compare them. Sarah Palin is just an idiot. She's far too conservative, saying that dinosaurs never existed and that sexual education should not be taught in schools when there is no evidence that the teaching of such information has increased the teen pregnancy rate whatsoever.
Revolution 9
10-01-2008, 10:47 PM
Both Palin and McCain can't really decide what they believe in, or more likley what they want to the public to think they believe.
The fact that Palin lied about idoitic things like her private jet amazes me to no end.
McCain says that he is for change, and yet turns around to agree with everything Bush puts into play.
Mehhht
10-02-2008, 01:19 AM
Freedom to do what you want, but not equality among citizens. Gays don't have the right to marry, or even adopt a child in some states.[/b]
Equality in America isn't equality in privileges. We are equal as voters and human beings and we are equal in rights. But just because you're gay and you want to have a child doesn't mean you can have one. Why? Because a man and a man can't have a baby. But I guess that makes them unequal because a man and a women can have a baby. Is that what you're saying?
I understand that this type of equality sounds nice and loving, but in reality, it doesn't exist.
In the example of health care, some people cannot afford proper health care, whilst others can. So the government should help those who can't pay, right? Sound good? Of course it sounds good, but it is not equality. It is stealing. To help pay, the government is forcing people to give up the money they earned for themselves to help pay for someone else. But it's equality, right?
Wrong. Why should those who can't pay get the privilege of getting money from others? Rich people don't get free money, why should they? Isn't that inequality?
Now I have no problem with the rich helping the poor. Heck, if I was rich I would help. But the problem that I have is the way the government is interfering. It isn't the job of the government to help the poor get money. It is the job of people, churches, ect.
Now it still sounds good to have government help, but it messes things up. It's like communism sounded good to everyone, it is a good concept, but it doesn't work. That's because things like incentives for working hard are lessened. I mean, if the government is just going to take away the money you are going to earn, why work hard to become rich? If Bill Gates didn't have the motivation to create microsoft, because the government would have taken his hard earned money to "help" people, would he have ever created a company that created thousands of jobs, and helped advance the world? That is the reason communism failed, people had no motivation to work hard, because in the end they get the same as everyone else.
So I am more "economically" conservative, I think the less government involvement, the better.
And if anyone is thinking "Well isn't the government is interfering with marriage, not letting gays get married?" I would say that marriage isn't a governmental process, it's a religious one. Now I understand that the government is involved, because they give tax benefits to married couples. So why shouldn't gays receive those benefits? Like I posted before, I think they should have benefits, I just don't think they should be religiously married. Why would they want to partake in a religious ceremony if they are against the religion, anyway?
But problems arise from that too, like any two guys could claim that they're gay just to receive the benefits. How could we fix that problem? I don't know. I don't know how to economically solve a problem of dishonesty.
Kinda hard to explain, but I tried my best.
You do realize that poverty is not always caused by everyone in the "poor" category, right? I certainly hope so. That's all I have to say in response to the first few paragraphs.
Marriage isn't even necessarily a fully religious process, I mean Atheists certainly get married enough these days. How else would they receive the benefits from a process in which they don't believe in? My mom works with a gay and lesbian who are technically married because they can not receive the benefits from the process by any other means. Don't you think something is wrong when it has to resort to this? Now your plan of that certain process for homosexual couples sounds great an all, but it's simply not realistic. The government will not grant equal benefits to a homosexual couple that is under the action of a civil union, especially not anytime soon when even civil unions are not granted in many states. The choice is between only two options: should we legalize gay marriage or not? I mean marriage itself is basically a compromise of state and church, which are supposedly separated.
Revolution 9
10-02-2008, 02:39 AM
Why would they want to partake in a religious ceremony if they are against the religion, anyway?[/b]
Oddly enough I head you could love Jesus, or whatever diety you choose, even if you are a homosexual.
Marriage isn't a strickly religious ceremony either, I personally am an antheist and plan to get married at some point.
Exactly. There are gay churches you know. I volunteer at one just down the street, it's a really cool place actually.
Mehhht
10-03-2008, 03:30 AM
Okay. In response to the "poverty" issue, poverty is not caused, its where we start (I know you can be born wealthy and such, but it's not like everyone can be middle class and some greedy people kicked the lower class down for their own benefit). Poverty, in America, can be aided because of people who want to succeed and create jobs for those who need them. I understand that some may be unable to work, buy taking money from the rich is just going make less and less jobs available and make life worse for a larger majority.
And for the gay marriage, I know anyone can love Jesus. But the Christian church (in general) is against gay marriage, not because we think gays are bigger sinners then we are, but because we have defined marriage as a bonding between a man and a women. Atheists can marry someone because they are not going against the ceremony. So it's not that we don't want them to marry because they are going against the church, but because they are going against the ceremony.
We'll at least that's what I think, I can't speak for all Christians...
So false acceptance of religion in the Church (ie. someone who doesn't believe in God or the Christian faith) is better than two people who love each other and follow the faith being joined?
Mehhht
10-03-2008, 06:54 AM
So false acceptance of religion in the Church (ie. someone who doesn't believe in God or the Christian faith) is better than two people who love each other and follow the faith being joined?[/b]
I never said you had to accept the religion to follow the ceremony, you just have to follow the ceremony to follow the ceremony. Simple.
Then that depletes it of any meaning. Still better?
Mehhht
10-04-2008, 04:20 AM
Then that depletes it of any meaning. Still better?[/b]
I don't see how that follows...
Just because a ceremony is followed the way it was designed to be followed doesn't deplete it of meaning.
Considering it's a religious ceremony, the persons involved would have to believe in that faith in order for it to be truly meaningful in its full sense, correct?
Mehhht
10-04-2008, 04:35 AM
Well, it's derived from religion, but it's not a required ceremony for Christianity, it is just the way God wanted man and women to be bonded. But sure, to be fully understood, I think you would have to be a part of the faith. But that doesn't mean it's meaningless.
Anyway, I don't see this going anywhere, lets get back to elections.
I can't vote, so I guess my opinion means nothing anyway.
Anyway, I think my final take is that I like Obama more than McCain (as a president), but I still am more conservative on the political spectrum.
Conservative = ignorant :D
Mehhht
10-04-2008, 05:09 AM
There's some good logic...
Rockstarr
10-05-2008, 06:28 AM
Well, it's derived from religion, but it's not a required ceremony for Christianity, it is just the way God wanted man and women to be bonded. But sure, to be fully understood, I think you would have to be a part of the faith. But that doesn't mean it's meaningless.
Anyway, I don't see this going anywhere, lets get back to elections.
I can't vote, so I guess my opinion means nothing anyway.
Anyway, I think my final take is that I like Obama more than McCain (as a president), but I still am more conservative on the political spectrum.[/b]
Completely agree. You don't have to be apart of the faith for it to have meaning. I have a friend who you'd consider the least "faithful" and her marriage meant the world to her, and not just because she was marrying someone she loved. There's more to it than religion and faith.
And I'm not really for Obama. I like McCain more, but I won't say his plans are perfect and what he wants to do is the best, but neither is Obama. I donno, kinda like we got problems in the end either way. McCain's going to die soon, we all know it because he's old. Obama has the chance of assassination. As bad as that sounds, it's true, and we all know that.
Anyways, I'm more for McCain. I've always been a bit more conservative on the political field, but I don't always go for the conservative candidate. I just don't have enough faith in Obama.
Conservative = ignorant :D[/b]
Nah, neither is ignorant. Each has their flaws and their good aspects. Like anything else.
Any president has the chance of assassination tbh. JFK was assassinated, a white president. Oh wow, maybe he was secretly black? I smell conspiracy.
Tbh, conservative views are generally ignorant (ie. gay marriage/civil union, abortion, tax cuts, etc). I mean, they do know that it's not required to have an abortion if you get pregnant, right? It seems as though they don't. But why stop at ruining someone's lives in one way when we can send them down the economic drain as well? I mean in a time where our dollar is of the second lowest value in American history, surely tax cuts are the answer. That would fix everything, right? I certainly think so. [/sarcasm]
And yes, some liberal views are a bit "unrealistic", depending on your viewpoint towards the subjects at hand. No, one president can not solve a national energy crisis in four years; no, one president can not abolish poverty in four years; no, one president can not fix our entire economy in four year; no, one president can not fix global foreign ties in four years (most likely, anyways). However, liberal social views do generally aim more towards the equality of its citizens. Obama has also openly admitted to his inexperience in foreign affairs, which is where Biden comes in.
Anyways, I could definitely see Palin having a higher chance of being assassinated than Obama. I definitely would not want this person in the white house...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c_MpcFfEZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83xjAmzj9YQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex69IcreAyU
Mehhht
10-06-2008, 05:03 AM
Tbh, conservative views are generally ignorant (ie. gay marriage/civil union, abortion, tax cuts, etc). I mean, they do know that it's not required to have an abortion if you get pregnant, right? It seems as though they don't. But why stop at ruining someone's lives in one way when we can send them down the economic drain as well? I mean in a time where our dollar is of the second lowest value in American history, surely tax cuts are the answer. That would fix everything, right? I certainly think so. [/sarcasm][/b]
You say conservative views (such as gay marriage and tax cuts) are ignorant, yet you are unable to refute my arguments supporting those views.
Do you even understand economics? I'm not going to even go into religious or traditional values... Tax raises will eventually lead to less money for the country. Sure it works at first. But what happens when all the 20% of richest people paying for 80% of the national budget (yet somehow most people believe they're paying nothing) decide that they don't want to live in USA anymore because they are losing too much money on taxes? The same problem started in California— we have the highest tax rates yet we are probably in the biggest financial crisis out of all the other states. Why? Because a lot of rich people found out they could have a lot more money living in other states/countries because they don't have to pay as much taxes.
Oh but I forgot since this is a conservative view it's "ignorant".
How about research a little and stop regurgitating what ranting liberals say.
I'm not really going to get into that because I do agree with some economic principles of conservatives, though I do disagree with you on the tax cuts issue. I was more referring to social issues.
Rockstarr
10-15-2008, 04:05 AM
What is it exactly you disagree on with the tax cuts?
I just think Obama's idea to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more is a bit more sound of an idea, though I can see how the redistribution can get into a bit of a messy issue.
superiorgamer
10-15-2008, 03:39 PM
meh... cmon guys.. if your gonna discuss this... do it abit more properly :P
Conservative = ignorant[/b]
I'm neither, but please use logic and reason if your going to bother to post.
Do you even understand economics? I'm not going to even go into religious or traditional values... Tax raises will eventually lead to less money for the country. Sure it works at first. But what happens when all the 20% of richest people paying for 80% of the national budget (yet somehow most people believe they're paying nothing) decide that they don't want to live in USA anymore because they are losing too much money on taxes? The same problem started in California— we have the highest tax rates yet we are probably in the biggest financial crisis out of all the other states. Why? Because a lot of rich people found out they could have a lot more money living in other states/countries because they don't have to pay as much taxes.[/b]
Perhaps this whole "fair" argument needs abit of review. Its "fair" to have rich people pay taxes right? I mean... why not just make the 1-4% of the population pay for %80+ our budget while they benefit the least from it (as we are doing right now). Sounds fair right guys? :P A good and noted point Meht.
However, seriously guys... government doesn't do enough for us. It only tries to completely control education,health, retirement, and justice of all its citizens. (in addition to saving the rain forest and building bridges to nowhere) Surely no institution that large could ever be corrupted. On the other hand, nothing is to fear since obama is becoming president. He is completely stands for limited government in all aspects of the word. He being a liberal will ensure us on a safe path away from socialism so there is nothing to fear.
On a less sarcastic note, both candidates do a very good job at being politicians. They do whatever it takes to get elected even if it means promising so much that the country goes down with them. Perhaps the 10+Trillion dept might have something to do with it. All I see with either candidate is 1000s of exspensive promises that will only result in higher taxes, more government, and a weakening of the dollar.
If people had the audacity or the smarts to vote for someone who campaigned for higher taxes, less spending, and the cutting many popular programs, (just the complete opposite of what a person would "want" to hear) the government just might turn around. In conclusion to my random rants, greed is the biggest enemy of America and it will be its downfall.
Revolution 9
10-15-2008, 06:51 PM
Anyways, I could definitely see Palin having a higher chance of being assassinated than Obama.[/b]
Yeah, it makes more sense for the nation.
We cannot have someone in a position of power who does things like deny abortions to rape victims.
I do not want someone who claims to be just another "joe 6-pack" running this country.
I would much rather have someone who isn't an idiot.
Thats why I'm for Obama, while he may not be experienced his cabinet picks certainly are.
Oh and McCain has Karl Rove, no thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyADaggSBEY
I'd vote for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcF7yTF_XlI
And we can't forget his great VP choice.
Revolution 9
10-15-2008, 09:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyADaggSBEY
I'd vote for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcF7yTF_XlI
And we can't forget his great VP choice.[/b]
But hes a POW, it makes up for all of that...
Oh wait, no it doesn't.
He has other experience in leadership besides that regarding military.
Oh wait, no he doesn't.
superiorgamer
10-15-2008, 11:55 PM
Experience matters, none of us can deny that. Its just how much do they really have and whether its realitive or not.. Phalin... no question about hers... as for mccain and obama,
Perhaps we should consider the basics of government... -.-
The American system is a 3branch system. Judaical, bicameral legislative, and executive.
President is ....the leader of the executive branch.
The primary function of the executive branch is the commander and chief of armed forces...
The power of the president is
1. supreme general of armed forces
2. power to call congress into special session in time of war
3. veto power
4. sujust bills to congress
Now... mccain does have.. 10-20+ years in congress in addition to many years in the military.
Obamas expirence is 3 years as a senator.
Now, I don't like mccain or obama and i'm not voting for either... but seriously... to try to argue that obama should be the supreme general of armed forces in a time of war having only 3 years of experience as senator is getting crazy. Just because you can talk and promise to be able to swade enough people to vote for you don't trump his experience. Again, i'm not for either but if your gonna try to pull the experience argument, I can't help but respond.
I wasn't pulling an experience argument. I was stating that obviously war has not helped our economy and that's all the leadership experience McCain has. He also said in one of the debates that he was never pro-war. Lol?
Oh yes, putting the military in the hands of a man who does not want to abuse the power of it is the epitome of stupidity. We obviously can't have someone in office who won't go to war at the drop of a dime.
Also, the president's decisions can vetoed by a 2/3 vote from Congress. Obviously the president has infinite power, and we wouldn't want to put this into the hands of someone such as Obama.
<3
Revolution 9
10-16-2008, 12:56 AM
I wasn't pulling an experience argument. I was stating that obviously war has not helped our economy and that's all the leadership experience McCain has. He also said in one of the debates that he was never pro-war. Lol?
Oh yes, putting the military in the hands of a man who does not want to abuse the power of it is the epitome of stupidity. We obviously can't have someone in office who won't go to war at the drop of a dime.
Also, the president's decisions can vetoed by a 2/3 vote from Congress. Obviously the president has infinite power, and we wouldn't want to put this into the hands of someone such as Obama.
<3[/b]
Don't forget that McCain's exploits in the Military were so successful.
I mean he crashed only 3 planes and only got by using the rank of his father and grandfather
But besides that he was pretty much pro at it.
I don't understand how a man who was tortured so much in a POW camp could possibly be pro-war. Do we really want someone that senile running our country? I certainly don't.
Rockstarr
10-16-2008, 01:44 AM
Now... mccain does have.. 10-20+ years in congress in addition to many years in the military.
Obamas expirence is 3 years as a senator.
Now, I don't like mccain or obama and i'm not voting for either... but seriously... to try to argue that obama should be the supreme general of armed forces in a time of war having only 3 years of experience as senator is getting crazy. Just because you can talk and promise to be able to swade enough people to vote for you don't trump his experience.[/b]
I agree, diplomacy is a great thing and should be used when possible, but Obama has this whole idea in his head it seems that damn near anyone he can sway into some sort of diplomatic treaty or reasoning, aside from Al Qaeda, specifically Osama and a few other individuals. Yeah, we shouldn't go to war every chance we get, but you need to look at it that if we need to go to war, who's going to be the best person in that position. It's kind of looking at it in the way where one is great for one thing, but on the other hand, if something happens, the other one is better for that particular part of the job.
Oh yes, putting the military in the hands of a man who does not want to abuse the power of it is the epitome of stupidity. We obviously can't have someone in office who won't go to war at the drop of a dime.
Also, the president's decisions can vetoed by a 2/3 vote from Congress. Obviously the president has infinite power, and we wouldn't want to put this into the hands of someone such as Obama.[/b]
Not all presidents are like that; going to war at the drop of a dime. And also, just because both candidates talk so much and promise so much, you know when either gets into office I bet you half it not even less of what they say will turn out to be true. It's all bs so that they rally up the voters to get into office, then they turn around and do whatever they can that they're in favor for, more than they do for the people in many cases. I can bet you that if Obama got elected, his whole world of diplomatic reasoning with anyone, or at least wanting to, would come crashing down on him.
Yeah, they can be vetoed, but if it's something like war, all it has to do is involve oil or anything of the sort and they won't care. If anyone in Congress gains from it, most of the people in the party do, and they won't veto the action. It's all about who pays who and who's lobbying who to support their bill or action.
Revolution 9
10-16-2008, 01:54 AM
Not all presidents are like that; going to war at the drop of a dime.[/b]
I agree.
But Bush certainly did, although at the time his faulty intelligence (Which McCain helped spread more than most people) made it look like a legitimate war.
And do you know who backed him on everything about that war, even saying it would be a quick restoration of peace?
McCain.
Not all presidents are like that; going to war at the drop of a dime. And also, just because both candidates talk so much and promise so much, you know when either gets into office I bet you half it not even less of what they say will turn out to be true. It's all bs so that they rally up the voters to get into office, then they turn around and do whatever they can that they're in favor for, more than they do for the people in many cases. I can bet you that if Obama got elected, his whole world of diplomatic reasoning with anyone, or at least wanting to, would come crashing down on him.
Yeah, they can be vetoed, but if it's something like war, all it has to do is involve oil or anything of the sort and they won't care. If anyone in Congress gains from it, most of the people in the party do, and they won't veto the action. It's all about who pays who and who's lobbying who to support their bill or action.[/b]
McCain seems to have stated quite clearly that he is pro-war, seeing as he backed the Bush administration on the war in Iraq. He did also say that it would be a quick restoration of peace, as Rev said. I'm sorry, when did we go into Iraq? What was our business there anyways? Weren't we supposed to invade Afghanistan in search of Osama and any accomplices? When did oil come into this?
Also, that statement is purely opinion. Of course not everything they say will come be completed, they're only in office for four years and especially at times such as these there is far too much to fix before we can start improving from the standards we were at a year ago.
You can say that they have the choice to not veto any decisions, but what kind of congress is going to go to war now over oil? It was an opportunist moment, meaning we were over there anyways so they decided to be morons and declare war on a country that had nothing to do with the reason we were over there anyways. However, if we had not done that then what would oil prices and availability be like now? I do not support the war at all, just speculating.
roasted
10-20-2008, 04:12 AM
I am for Oboma because it seems like Palin has no idea what is going on, whenever she is off-script she seems like she is clueless, also Mccain is too old in my opinion
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.