Obama or Clinton?

Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton?

  • Obama

    Votes: 42 95.5%
  • Clinton

    Votes: 2 4.5%

  • Total voters
    44
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
717
Best answers
0
Ron Paul dropped out.

That really sux.. some pees have no idea T_T.

as for Obama: A Good presentational "image" , but comon rippig other people off. Feeding people what they "want" to hear instead of what they "need" to hear. Obama doesn't seem suited for the jobz 4 me.


Obama:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WCE-hVYw2as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgctsioisJg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqutz5ASDSA&feature=related


Hillary? Heck no.. NO. no no no.. and.?? NO you can tell how twisted she can be simply by how she ran her campaign and advertised herself+ acted in the public + behind the scenes.. NONOOONO... that and she'd continue a Dynasty if she won..

Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kttr_iGGftI


Get informed:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R1aWFSoURRQ
 
New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
654
Best answers
0
Nader's chances of winning are slim to none.

And yes the bay of pigs was a failure in every aspect... however he did get us through the CMC. So atleast he did something beneficial.
And it's that attitude that everyone in the nation has that will prevent a third party from ever really having a chance at winning. Isn't anyone else tired of choosing from 2 people?
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Location
New York
We don't choose out of two people. The primaries are still on going, which is where the people vote who will get the nomination for each party.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. What do you have against the way we handled the Cuban Missile Crisis? Granted, it was a tense moment in our history that could've resulted in nuclear war.. but, it's certainly an example of democratic initiative--in their favor, unlike the normal image of the endless debating that plagues the UN and traditionally democratic-leaning bodies. Had JFK not intervened, it would've drastically damaged our long-term national security--we had to respond to an obviously hostile move by the USSR.

People often credit the Clinton administration for scaling back funding for our intelligence services and "causing 9/11." I don't think that makes much sense, since it was the Republican controlled congress that set the budget. I don't know about them revoking the right to kill, though. I don't really know what you mean by that; the CIA doesn't physically fight wars, doesn't execute people, and certainly shouldn't be interrogating people to death.

You say "infighting" and I hear "practice of the democratic process," which is a good thing. Very much diametrically opposed to the "I'M THE DECIDER" politics of today.
For the Cuban Missile Crisis, lets not forget that President Kennedy caused it by sticking nuclear missiles in Turkey, which could reach Moscow in 16 minutes from launch (a dileberate attempt to move from MAD to first strike win). This was the reason they put nukes in Cuba. It was an unnecessary provocation. Then, he responded by saying that any nuclear launch from Cuba would elicit MAD launches from the united states. Some initiative, some would say Bush has made the same cowboy mistakes with our nuclear arsenal. Further the Cuban Missile Crisis did nothing to our strategic position. The Polaris was already closer and more deadly than the missiles in Turkey. It could be fired from underwater, right under the russians noses in their own coastal waters.

Don't add "cause 9/11" to my opinion if I didn't state it. I did not. President Clinton dileberatly put the Al Quaeda threat on the back burner several times. Though to be fair any other president might of as well. Still, it was not any other, it was him. He further knee capped them by removing the license to kill usually given to spy/foriegn agent types. They weren't allowed to shoot back if caught. Seriously. He also pulled them all home shortly after that order. No intellegence in the field is so bad its not even worth debating why it should not have happened. Now instead of having people with there ears to the ground all these years, we have people who have to waterboard to do their job. It's the only way they can get information on short term with no spy network to back them up.

As for democracy, our founding fathers warned against it. We should have had a federal republic all these years. ;)

The Democratic party unified to steal seats from the republicans, and then proceeded to do nothing with their lead. It makes me laugh, because we can either not get things done, or do the wrong things with the republicans who do have very little problem playing nice together.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Location
New York
The sheer amount of civil liberties taken away from us and scoffed at under Bush is enough to make me never want to vote for a republican. Where does McCain stand on restoring Habeas Corpus, the Department of Homeland Security, warrentless wiretapping, torture, all of that jazz?

As for Kennedy, he got us out of the crisis without a nuclear war, so it's not like he failed.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
For the Cuban Missile Crisis, lets not forget that President Kennedy caused it by sticking nuclear missiles in Turkey, which could reach Moscow in 16 minutes from launch (a dileberate attempt to move from MAD to first strike win). This was the reason they put nukes in Cuba. It was an unnecessary provocation. Then, he responded by saying that any nuclear launch from Cuba would elicit MAD launches from the united states. Some initiative, some would say Bush has made the same cowboy mistakes with our nuclear arsenal. Further the Cuban Missile Crisis did nothing to our strategic position. The Polaris was already closer and more deadly than the missiles in Turkey. It could be fired from underwater, right under the russians noses in their own coastal waters.

Don't add "cause 9/11" to my opinion if I didn't state it. I did not. President Clinton dileberatly put the Al Quaeda threat on the back burner several times. Though to be fair any other president might of as well. Still, it was not any other, it was him. He further knee capped them by removing the license to kill usually given to spy/foriegn agent types. They weren't allowed to shoot back if caught. Seriously. He also pulled them all home shortly after that order. No intellegence in the field is so bad its not even worth debating why it should not have happened. Now instead of having people with there ears to the ground all these years, we have people who have to waterboard to do their job. It's the only way they can get information on short term with no spy network to back them up.

As for democracy, our founding fathers warned against it. We should have had a federal republic all these years. ;)

The Democratic party unified to steal seats from the republicans, and then proceeded to do nothing with their lead. It makes me laugh, because we can either not get things done, or do the wrong things with the republicans who do have very little problem playing nice together.
I just don't see it like you do. Granted, you seem to know more about that period of history than I do--I haven't really studied it. I do know a fair bit about how (at least, as far as someone unaffiliated can) our intelligence services operate, but I haven't really heard anything about the "license to kill"--everything I've always seen says those are an urban legend/myth. And we have intelligence operatives in all of our embassies/consulates around the world--to my knowledge, no drastic cutback in either their number of total operatives or deployed operatives has happened in the last thirty years.

They aren't the sort of organization that would advertise that either way, though.

I don't think that's accurate in describing either a justification for waterboarding. We've supposedly only done it to two or three people in extreme circumstances, and each time was for only around thirty seconds or so. But I still don't agree with it's uses, and don't think our choice to do it had anything to do with our lackluster intelligence gathering.

The people authorized to make the kind of decision to waterboard someone are:

1) Senior directors who've been with the agency for decades, through administrations of both colors, and
2) People put in charge since Bush took office, acting under his direction.

Either way, I don't see it being a black-and-white picture of, "Oh.. we had less people on the ground, and now have to torture people in order to make up the difference." Waterboarding is used, mistakenly, as a way to get information out of someone in an extremely short-term, time-critical situation. General intelligence gathering doesn't call for it..

As for the legislature--the democrats have an extremely weak majority, incapable of forcing legislation through. You can thank the obstructionist republicans for stonewalling any democratic attempts at numerous objectives. Especially immigration reform.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
For the CIA, it was huge national news when it happened, but that was what, 10 years ago or more? You were in grade school then, perhaps your first year of Junior High. I was already voting. Clinton was widely criticised for it when it happened. I'll try and find some articles on it, but that was around when Gore invented the internets.

As for the legislature--the democrats have an extremely weak majority, incapable of forcing legislation through. You can thank the obstructionist republicans for stonewalling any democratic attempts at numerous objectives. Especially immigration reform.
They obstruct themselves by adding tiny little print to the bottom line of every piece of legislation.

". . . and our troops get to come home so we keep our seats."

I'll agree though, waterboarding was an extreme example, but it does not change the damages inflicted by eight years of foreign policy aimed at Martha's Vinyard. :\

And regarding Sub:

For people under the age of 20 who apparently aren't taught this in school anymore, the US administration CAUSED the cuban missile crisis. That would be like Bush pulling out of Iraq and patting him on the back for doing a good job ending that costly war.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
Why isn't McCain on that list? Is the Republican part suddenly invisible?
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Why isn't McCain on that list? Is the Republican part suddenly invisible?
McCain is the Republican candidate. We'll have a plenty of time to debate the general elections, but we still need to choose a democratic candidate.
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
652
Best answers
0
Location
On the Annihilatrix.
And it's that attitude that everyone in the nation has that will prevent a third party from ever really having a chance at winning. Isn't anyone else tired of choosing from 2 people?
Unless you have some way to get everyone to rally together and vote for the Green party.. then his chances still remain slim to none.
 
King of the Hello Kitty Fanclub
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
1,675
Best answers
0
Location
Australia
Has anybody realised Obama is one letter different from Osama? It's a conspiracy!
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
1,172
Best answers
0
Location
Israel
Has anybody realised Obama is one letter different from Osama? It's a conspiracy!
Lol if you just noticed that then that's pretty ridiculous for you. I even think CNN or Fox News made the mistake of calling him Barak Osama.

Glad to see all the Obama supporters I think he's the man.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Location
New York
I find it curious that the internet is pro Obama, yet in real life it's split pretty evenly.

In any case, Obama made a big speech about racial tensions in America today. I'm curious what everyone thought of it, you can view it here


I thought that the entire controversy over what his pastor had stated was entirely irrelevent, but I like the approach Obama took with the issue. He used the attacks that were carried out against him as an opportunity to discuss race as a larger issue in society.
 
Live free or die by the sword
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Location
North East Pennsylvania
Bottom line, his message of change has young america interested. Too bad he's never clear on what change he can actually make.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Location
New York
I do think he is different from other politicians, though. He could have thrown his pastor under the bus and distanced himself from him, which would have been the safe move, but he chose to not do that.

The fact that he has over 1 million donors and doesn't need to rely on lobbyists for money allows him the freedom on day one to actually accomplish change. He won't owe anyone any favors. You are correct in him being vague on what exactly he wants to do, however.
 
New Member
★ Black Lounger ★
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
3,913
Best answers
0
Location
Texas
Bottom line, his message of change has young america interested. Too bad he's never clear on what change he can actually make.
that prettymuch summed up my entire argument without making a huge, long, half incoherent post.
 
Super Moderator
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
3,125
Best answers
0
In any case, Obama made a big speech about racial tensions in America today. I'm curious what everyone thought of it, you can view it here
Watched that yesterday when it popped up on Digg, it was honestly one of most genuinely thought-provoking speeches I have ever heard in a long time.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Obama's speech is the epitome to why I prefer him over the other candidates, as candidate (as opposed to policies).
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
717
Best answers
0
I'm not bashing Obama's speech.. but could someone tell me what was so great about the speech?

I didn't listen to all of it.. I watch nearly half.. but he seemed to be mostly addressing racism in this country..

Is there anything I'm missing?

Obama, possibly a more articulate Bush?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XWOD6JgShw


::::edit:::::

Anyone? I've heard a few people sound so empowered or convinced to support him from this speech, on racism.. yet I don't see what's so important or great about it... 2 b honest.. In my opinion racism isn't a frontline threat in this country....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom