|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:14 pm
Just curious to hear peoples opinions 3nodding
I personally am in favor of Hillary xd
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:46 pm
Heavy Obama supporter. I distrust Hillary, and dislike her policies regarding such things as video games (no, playing Halo has not made me into a psychotic mass murderer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:24 pm
Obama for I still believe we are not ready for a woman president....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:57 pm
I believe we are not ready for a black president.
Hillary all the way
Counter-balancing ignorance tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:02 am
I don't really think it's a matter of what were ready for, but what we're willing to settle for.
I am as liberal as the sky is blue and I am female, but I am also sick and tired of politicians who are run by lobbyists and not the people. What makes you think Hillary backs the people? She's been in the business long enough that she owes too many favors, and I don't agree with that.
As for Obama, you have to love the guy. He gets YOUNG people excited, and I haven't seen that since the 60s when kids actually gave a crap about what their government did. However, he is a youngin', and politics wasn't his family's business like my pal JFK. It's not that he has a lack of experience, because in my opinion democracy isn't that hard to understand. I just can't really place why I'm not as happy with him as I could be.
Oh, and you mustn't leave out my favorite candidate, which is Ron Paul. The man who thinks he can accomplish in 4 years what we haven't been able to accomplish in 150. His supporters are mainly silly pot heads and young people who don't understand a thing about our government, or really anything at all.
Perhaps he dropped out though.
I really want to give the Republicans a round of applause for their FABULOUS pick for a nominee. John "Bomb Iran" McCain. G-d help us if we put another War Hawk conservative in the White House.
That is all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:58 am
kingpinsqeezels I really want to give the Republicans a round of applause for their FABULOUS pick for a nominee. John "Bomb Iran" McCain. G-d help us if we put another War Hawk conservative in the White House. (Neuf throws a heavy document labeled "KEATING FIVE" on the table) And that's why John McCain will not take the white house. So, just learn to start saying "President Obama" now and save yourself some time come next January. Btw will January 20th 2009 be like the last 10 minutes of Starwars Episode Six? You know it's Bush's last day in office. So will there we people dancing in the street? fireworks? d**k Cheney burning over a funeral pyre as Hayden Christensen looks on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkphoenix1247 Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:19 pm
Neither? I don't really like any of them, actually, but I really dislike Clinton. I've posted a longer discussion about this is in the sub-forums, but I disagree on the few policies she differs with Obama with, and I really hate her as a person. I feel she's manipulative and just not a trustworthy person.
Don't get me wrong- I'm a fairly large feminist (in the fact that I think men and women should have equal rights). I don't mind a women president, an African American president, or even a Jewish president. (Actually, would love the latter). But, I don't like Hillary.
Nader anybody? xd Why does he even bother? (Rhetorical)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:06 pm
Manipulative? She's a woman in politics, of course she's manipulative.
Being a feminist and supporting everything because a woman is involved are two completely different things. But you know that.
I think Clinton is too conservative and too anti-diplomacy (no matter how muh she swear up and down that she's all for it) to be a suitable president after this reign of terror.
And yeah Neuf, it will be totally Star Warsesque. I know I'm throwing a bomb a** party, complete with fireworks and Ewoks! wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:35 pm
But Clinton has basically had experience as a president before. When her husband was in office, the country flourished, had a surplus of money, and Hillary had done a lot of that work. Yes it is true that Obama has a lot of the younger crowd as fans (I know about this being a High School Student) but a lot of the older people prefer Hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:48 pm
Older people prefer Hillary because she's conservative. She has experience, sure, but like I said...that has it's pros and cons. Also, things have changed drastically since President Clinton's time. She would have to learn the ropes all over again, I don't care how awesome she thinks she is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:19 pm
Shalom_Zeev But Clinton has basically had experience as a president before. When her husband was in office, the country flourished, had a surplus of money, and Hillary had done a lot of that work. Yes it is true that Obama has a lot of the younger crowd as fans (I know about this being a High School Student) but a lot of the older people prefer Hillary. You should look into Hillary's record. She failed to bring about change while Bill was President. Her health plan? Yeah, she tried that already, and failed with it. Hillary has experience in a broken system that doesn't work. That sorta experience isn't what we need. (Hehe. I'm an ED-P reg, so this sorta topic is what I live for)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:58 pm
kingpinsqeezels I don't really think it's a matter of what were ready for, but what we're willing to settle for. I am as liberal as the sky is blue and I am female, but I am also sick and tired of politicians who are run by lobbyists and not the people. What makes you think Hillary backs the people? She's been in the business long enough that she owes too many favors, and I don't agree with that. As for Obama, you have to love the guy. He gets YOUNG people excited, and I haven't seen that since the 60s when kids actually gave a crap about what their government did. However, he is a youngin', and politics wasn't his family's business like my pal JFK. It's not that he has a lack of experience, because in my opinion democracy isn't that hard to understand. I just can't really place why I'm not as happy with him as I could be. Oh, and you mustn't leave out my favorite candidate, which is Ron Paul. The man who thinks he can accomplish in 4 years what we haven't been able to accomplish in 150. His supporters are mainly silly pot heads and young people who don't understand a thing about our government, or really anything at all. Perhaps he dropped out though. I really want to give the Republicans a round of applause for their FABULOUS pick for a nominee. John "Bomb Iran" McCain. G-d help us if we put another War Hawk conservative in the White House. That is all! JFK was a total a** that almost got us all killed and could have stayed out of Vietnam like he should have. By no means is he great in anyway. Ron Paul supporters are mainly older or internet based support. They never saw a real job in their lives or to rich to understand. Need to work on a better slur to his name than that attachment you got there. To clustered doesn't sound nice. For me. Liberal or conservative. Both silly titles names to attach to oneself to make one feel like they have actual worth in a worthless world. Liberal here is conservative in applied European context. We vote by our state not as a nation. Nader bothers because he can. Even if you laugh at him, getting more than two parties will help get this country better. These two parties are the problems all due to how our government was formed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:18 am
I agree that a bi-partisan party doesn't really work, but the way the system is set up, that is all it allows for. Two parties. At this point, it's too hard to change because it just confuses people, especially Americans. I think Ralph Nader is just a p***k, I don't think he runs because he actually thinks he's going to win, I think it runs to tick people off. I wasn't actually being serious when I said,"my pal". I don't agree with much of anything that happened politics wise in the 60s and 70s. I do think JFK could have avoided Nam and Bay of Pigs, but he and his brother were known for being soft on Communism, and with McCarthyism in full swing, he had to prove himself as tough. In my opinion: he got elected, so people thought he was doing SOMETHING right. We should have just kept our nose out of it. I'm actually a bigger fan of Bobby. He could have done great things. And the whole "Bomb Iran" thing almost cost him his candidacy. Haven't you seen it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:56 pm
Yeah but McCain has often been called a RINO (Republican in Name Only) He's a big government big spender with a very liberal agenda, the only difference is he wants to keep Gitmo open. and oh yeah... KEATING FIVE!!!!Seriously, look that up
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:09 pm
I think you forget that in the eyes of most neo-cons, "minimally involved" isn't any big deal! It might as well mean "not involved at all". Plus, most people don't care enough to actually look into the past of their candidate of choice, or any candidate at all unless they MIGHT BE A MUSLIM! OMG!
Mud slinging is so much fun though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
