You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 12:06:05 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Overlord

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #375 on: June 05, 2008, 05:58:09 AM »

*Is still waiting to see The Onion article-*



Hillary loses Democratic nomination, takes nearly a week to realize it.  ::)

Online National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #376 on: June 05, 2008, 07:02:47 AM »
There is a huge difference between ending your campaign and suspending it. If she merely suspends it, she can still fundraise, and her delegates won't be released. I expect her to still make some rumblings. I also expect her to endorse him, but to be really lackluster in her campaigning for him.

Offline The Overlord

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #377 on: June 05, 2008, 07:34:47 AM »
The Clinton marraige has been one of policital convience, first and foremost, both of them have had very lofty goals in high government for decades.


As it was put by a political anaylyst, this is about a line of political succession. It's about who is next in line for the Oval Office. In the Republican camp, it began with the Reagan era, and evolved as his VP, George Bush Sr., was next in line...there was a two-term swap with the Dems, and then Dubya was at the front of the line and got in.

With the Dems, in 92'-00' Willy gave us the Clinton dynasty, and now, Hillary was next in line.

And that's my entire take on her now; she was supposed to win it, she deserved to win. She thinks we owe her the job.


And for that one reason alone, we couldn't afford to let her get in there.


Had Hillary won, and had she gotten into office, that would be a quarter century with a Clinton or a Bush in office....a fracking quarter century.


It's indeed time to turn the page. As they said, with her losing the nomination, the Clinton dynasty has come to an end. And later this year, the Bush dynasty is going to end.


I am overjoyed that my vote, even in a miniscule way, has helped make this happen, and put our best hope for the presidency on track. This November, our country has an opportunity to either grow up and take an evolutionary step, or stayed mired in the politics of the past. An opportunity to make me prideful of it, or ashamed of it. Becuase if we let McCain get in, we will get four more years of SSDD. And if you can't see we need things to change, then god help you.


Obama FTW.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #378 on: June 05, 2008, 08:47:07 AM »
 
Quote
Obama FTW.

 That made me shudder. As much as people like him, he just doesn't have the experiance. Especially at international relations. He has said things that convince me of that.
 This was said about the Repubs (not by Obama, but in this thread)
 
Quote
Just the Republicans will cause blood since we are going to attack Iran at some point and then we are in for it a full scale real conflict with an organized military

 Obama has said, several times, that he would have the US commanders in Afghanistan use the iltelligence they get to go after the terrorists and insurgents. Even if they were in Pakistan. Wether or not the government of Pakistan gave us permission. ie. He's willing to ruin relations  with an ally, to 'get the bad guys'. That is not smart international relations.

 He's also willing to sit down and talk to Cuba, Iran, N. Korea and other nations on the sh*t list. apparently with out any preset conditions (I may be wrong in this since I have not listened to any news sources in a consistant manner for the last 2+ months). To set aside the policies of the last administration. Which he is forgetting is the same policy of the last8 Administrations! At the least. None of them talked to those nations, and Carter, arguable made Iran what it is today.

 Basically, I do not think Obama has the experiance, wisdom, common sense to be an effective President.

 Hillary just scares me because she 'wants it' so badly. Anyone who wants it should never ever get it.

 Mc Cain, is not a Republican, just a RINO. He should switch parties instead of trying to drag the R party over the cliff with him. The idiot..

Offline calamity

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #379 on: June 05, 2008, 12:01:07 PM »
Obama has said, several times, that he would have the US commanders in Afghanistan use the iltelligence they get to go after the terrorists and insurgents. Even if they were in Pakistan. Wether or not the government of Pakistan gave us permission. ie. He's willing to ruin relations  with an ally, to 'get the bad guys'. That is not smart international relations.

When our nation was in crisis, when terrorists struck at us and killed thousands of working men and women in the WTC, the majority of the globe rallied behind us.  They were shocked and disgusted by the actions of al Qaeda and they supported our endeavors to achieve justice by striking back.  To go to Afghanistan made sense, and the world had our back.  I would wager a pretty penny that we would not have that same support today, and the reason is that we have absolutely sullied our international reputation.

That said, I must ask - what is your definition of "smart international relations"?  Is it the tactics of the Bush administration?  Because from what I have seen, those tactics have failed on a staggering level. 

As for Pakistan, an ally does not remain an ally if she knowingly houses our enemies.  I applaud Obama for wanting to insure America's safety by actually bringing terrorists to justice.

He's also willing to sit down and talk to Cuba, Iran, N. Korea and other nations on the sh*t list. apparently with out any preset conditions (I may be wrong in this since I have not listened to any news sources in a consistant manner for the last 2+ months). To set aside the policies of the last administration. Which he is forgetting is the same policy of the last8 Administrations! At the least. None of them talked to those nations, and Carter, arguable made Iran what it is today.

If you really believe that refusing to speak to "problem countries" is wise, I would ask you to remember that Kennedy was speaking with Gorbachev on an almost daily basis at the height of the tensions between our nations.  I would venture to say that had Kennedy not done so, we might not be typing out our opinions about politics at all. 

The Republican party has frequently claimed that Iran does not deserve the privilege of speaking to us.  The arrogance that sentiment carries is absolute hubris.  Diplomacy is supposed to be our strength.  If we are not willing to speak to our enemies, there can be no resolutions.  I feel much better about the idea of rational discourse than muscle comparisons.

As for Iran - they may have nukes, but at the moment they have no way to launch them anywhere on our soil.  Iran doesn't have ICBMs.  They don't have nuclear submarines.  They have no infastructure with which to threaten our borders.  The same applies to North Korea.

Obama was asked "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama responded, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/)

Asked if he were still willing to meet without precondition during his first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez, Obama said, "I do. Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Preconditions means that we won't meet with people unless they've already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, 'We won't meet with you until you've agreed to all the terms that we've laid out,' from their perspective that's not a negotiation, that's not a meeting." (Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_blog_extra_obama_on_meet.html)

Basically, I do not think Obama has the experiance, wisdom, common sense to be an effective President.

Well, to quote Newt Gingrich: "Abraham Lincoln served two years in the US House, and seemed to do all right."  :P  Obama may not be a senior senator, but he is hardly some damp-eared pup.  He spent eight years in the Illinois senate before his two years in the US Senate.  Currently, he serves on three of the four senate committees dealing with foreign policy issues.  He's the chair of a subcommittee that is responsible for American relations with the European Union and NATO.  He graduated from Columbia University with a political science degree specializing in foreign relations.  Don't buy into the bullshit about him being too green to handle the presidency.  It's just not true.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #380 on: June 05, 2008, 12:55:12 PM »
 
Quote
As for Pakistan, an ally does not remain an ally if she knowingly houses our enemies.  I applaud Obama for wanting to insure America's safety by actually bringing terrorists to justice.

 Even if that action can turn the ally against us? Right now, Pakistan is letting us use their airspace to fly supplies and troops to Afghanistan. If Pakistan stopped being our ally, we would loose that vital air corridor and put the troops in Afghanistan in a tight situation.

 Pakistan is having their own problems with the terrorist group, the ruler has to keep his population's dislike  of him, and support of the terrorist group. It's likely they will be helping us more in that, but the one thjing they cannot do is be seeing letting the US run roughshod over their sovereignty(sp), or the countrside can go to the terrorist group ad the Taliban.

 
Quote
If you really believe that refusing to speak to "problem countries" is wise, I would ask you to remember that Kennedy was speaking with Gorbachev on an almost daily basis at the height of the tensions between our nations.  I would venture to say that had Kennedy not done so, we might not be typing out our opinions about politics at all.

 On a phone to the Kremlin, but not in a formal diplomatic session, like what is happening to N. Korea, a nation that I might add has proven to be lying or very decitful to the 6 nations that are trying to bring a resolution to that problem.
 
Quote
As for Iran - they may have nukes, but at the moment they have no way to launch them anywhere on our soil.  Iran doesn't have ICBMs.  They don't have nuclear submarines.  They have no infastructure with which to threaten our borders.  The same applies to North Korea.

 Iran doesn't have nukes yet, but they are working to get them. Even the IAEA(sp)the UN organization is having difficulties believing Iran's word.  N. Korea does have ICBMs. Several which can theoretically reach the US West coast. Everyone in the area of N. Korea conciders them a danger.

 Did the Clinton administration talk to Iran during their 8 years in office? No. what about N. korea? There they did, and look what happened? The N. Koreans lied and developed nukes when they promised not to. Trust but not verify?  How many administrations did not talk to N. Korea? How many Repub and Demo?
 
 Cuba is another one. We are the only nation in the world to not have trade relations with them. We have not had much diplomatic relations since Castro took power, which has been about 40-50 years. Cuba's problems are not of our making.

 
Quote
He spent eight years in the Illinois senate before his two years in the US Senate.  Currently, he serves on three of the four senate committees dealing with foreign policy issues.  He's the chair of a subcommittee that is responsible for American relations with the European Union and NATO.  He graduated from Columbia University with a political science degree specializing in foreign relations.  Don't buy into the bullshit about him being too green to handle the presidency.  It's just not true.

 What has he done in the Senate then? What bills has he sponsered? How often has he been IN the Senate in the last year doing what he was elected to do? How many accomplishments has he actually done that prove he is qualified? Being in several Senate committes means nothing when he isn't there to actually do Senate business. How many of those committes has met? Has the one committe he chairs, met?

 I haven't heard anything, from Republican or Democrate sources that says he is qualified. Nothing of substance, just wishes.


 
Quote
That said, I must ask - what is your definition of "smart international relations"?  Is it the tactics of the Bush administration?  Because from what I have seen, those tactics have failed on a staggering level.

 Bush has done some damage, but I do not put the blame entirely on him. I put it on the nations(governments, not the people) that turned weak when they saw we meant  'military' force in response to a military attack. Al Qada is not going to be stopped by a treaty. They are an ideal, not a nation. Some people can't be talked to, only defeated or surrendered too.

  I also don't like Obama's promises for the nations economy. Tax increases and taking corporate profits. Bad bad economic policy.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:03:58 PM by Zakharra »

Offline Kathadon

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #381 on: June 05, 2008, 01:02:16 PM »
Honestly I agree on all points Vix raised. Well done. You even sited your sources.

Now alot of people have said Hillary will be VP. I highly doubt it. She does not bring anything to the ticket for Obama. White working class rural blue collar votes? Um...? All the white working class rural blue collar types would rather vote for McCain. That is just a fact, call it racism or the religious right but they will not be in his corner no matter if he took Hillary, Bill and the entire cast of the Blue Collar Comedy tour.

She brings experience? He is running on change and breaking with the old way of doing business in Washington. Taking her really does nullify that argument. Not to mention all the back room deals she has made over the past two years. Has anyone looked at some of the Pacts that were funding her campaign? Major political lobbies one and all. Please go to HillaryClinton.com and pledge your 5$ my ass. Now she needs every middleclass dime to stay out of bankruptcy, 'cause all the big money said sayonara.

She deserves it: for the way the media treated her, dealing with the sexism, her running a great campaign, to bring her supporters in, 'cause Fat Bill fucked it up for her? Man what a bunch of crap right there. In 2006 EVERY media pundint had her all but crowned. She was a juggernaut. It was decided and the primaries were just a formality. Then SHE got... well lets be honest, she really didn't see Obama coming. Only in the last 4 months has she actually campaigned. And hell half the bruises Obama has taken have been self inflicted! Either from inside his own campaign (or proxies)or from his own mouth. If she actually would have came out swinging or even really differed from Obama in ANY way other than the dangley bits and tint, she might have won.

Obama ran the better campaign. He kept it civil. Avoided bringing up Fat Bill's term. Whitewater or Monica anyone? She whined. Whined about the media, whined about the sexism, whined about the DNC's own friggan' rules. Hell. Obama said finally,  "Fine! Whatever, here is half of what you want. You still can't catch me in delegates." Now she is sulking. No thank you Hillary. You showed America your true colors. You felt entitled. Thank god we slapped you down.

Now McCain...Man what a bunch of Republican bullsh... reinventing yourself ;). I miss the John McCain of 2000. You remember him right? He called Pat Robertson an "Agent of Intolerance." Woohoo! That was great. How he got beat by that retarded,self delusional, ex-coke head, C student who lived most of his ADULT life on Daddie's dime is beyond me. Oh wait that's right, G.W. played dirty. Hell of dirty actually. He brought up that John McCain had a black daughter. He made it look like he fathered her out of wedlock and never mentioning that she was ADOPTED! Yeah McCain stuck his foot in his mouth by bad mouthing the religious right, big business, and the pork belly politics. But G.W. drug him down to the mud hole and stomped him in and it worked.

But who said that line about old dogs and new tricks? Johny is an old dog but he has learned some new tricks. If Obama (or his stupid pastors. Why they even matter is BEYOND me anyway but...) doesn't shoot himself in the foot to much more they will have a series of debates spanning the next 10 WEEKS! Nullifying Obama's money advantage by helping McCain get TV time right along side him. I hope it turns out like the Nixon/Kennedy debates. Oh and that Obama has more good sense than to drive around in a convertable.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:05:19 PM by Kathadon »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #382 on: June 05, 2008, 01:14:42 PM »
 Another thing I don't agree with Obama and Hillary, Mc Cain too, is the energy policy. We need to drill for more oil, but all three are opposed to doing that. The US and world economy runs on oil. There is plenty of it and if we don't get what is close to us, we will loose it as the Chinese and Cubans drill off our shores. States like California and Florida should not have any say on what is drilled offshore. They do not own the water, nor do they have a say in international waters. The reasoning I have heard, 'Oil platforms visible from shore and oil spills', is not based in fact. The platforms would be 30+ miles offshore. Far below the horizon visible from the shore. The US oil companies have a god record in safety.

 We need oil to grow, they want to reduce it. Recycling and reducing usage will not grow an economy.

Offline calamity

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #383 on: June 05, 2008, 01:18:35 PM »
Even if that action can turn the ally against us? Right now, Pakistan is letting us use their airspace to fly supplies and troops to Afghanistan. If Pakistan stopped being our ally, we would loose that vital air corridor and put the troops in Afghanistan in a tight situation.

 Pakistan is having their own problems with the terrorist group, the ruler has to keep his population's dislike  of him, and support of the terrorist group. It's likely they will be helping us more in that, but the one thjing they cannot do is be seeing letting the US run roughshod over their sovereignty(sp), or the countrside can go to the terrorist group ad the Taliban.

Okay, let me try putting this another way.  I doubt strongly that someone as diplomatically inclined as Barack Obama would storm into Pakistan and shit all over their carpet without extremely good reasons.  The thing is, this is a complete hypothetical.  There are far too many ifs involved to have a coherent discussion about this.  Obama's point wasn't that he'd actively seek to ruin our relationship with Pakistan.  His point was that we should be working to bring terrorists to justice.  I find that rather difficult to disagree with.  The question you ask - which is "at what cost?" is extremely important.  But it's not something I bite my nails over when it comes to Obama.  He hasn't proven himself to be irrational or emotionally driven when it comes to delicate matters.  He has rather shown himself to be methodical, logical, and more than willing to listen to multiple views on a subject before making decisions.  Those are qualities that I want in a president.

 
Iran doesn't have nukes yet, but they are working to get them. Even the IAEA(sp)the UN organization is having difficulties believing Iran's word.  N. Korea does have ICBMs. Several which can theoretically reach the US West coast. Everyone in the area of N. Korea conciders them a danger.

I didn't mean to imply that Iran has nukes.  I apologize.  I meant to say that even if they did, it would hardly matter until they had a means to threaten us with them.  As for North Korea's ICBMs...well.  It's hard to judge whether they can reach our soil.  In any case, their nuclear power is beyond dwarfed in comparison with ours.  Kim Jung Il is a pretty crazy dude, to be sure.  But even in the worst case scenario, he loses.  He can't wipe out the United States.  He wouldn't even come close before his nation was reduced to rubble.

Did the Clinton administration talk to Iran during their 8 years in office? No. what about N. korea? There they did, and look what happened? The N. Koreans lied and developed nukes when they promised not to. Trust but not verify?  How many administrations did not talk to N. Korea? How many Repub and Demo?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.  Certainly you don't think that Clinton is somehow responsible for North Korea's nuclear weapons system because he dared to speak to them?  Also, I don't care how many administrations refused to talk to North Korea.  That doesn't mean it's the best course of action today.  Barack Obama isn't claiming that he's going to set up a tea party with Kim Jung Il or Ahmadinejad.  He's saying that he would be willing to meet with those leaders under the right circumstances with intent to bridge the gap between our nations.  I can't see, no matter how hard I squint, how that is a harmful outlook.
 
Cuba is another one. We are the only nation in the world to not have trade relations with them. We have not had much diplomatic relations since Castro took power, which has been about 40-50 years. Cuba's problems are not of our making.

I don't recall ever saying that we created Cuba's problems.  Also, being the only nation in the world that refuses to trade with Cuba is hardly something to boast about.  We're also one of the only nations in the world to use the Imperial system.  *winks*

  
What has he done in the Senate then? What bills has he sponsered? How often has he been IN the Senate in the last year doing what he was elected to do? How many accomplishments has he actually done that prove he is qualified? Being in several Senate committes means nothing when he isn't there to actually do Senate business. How many of those committes has met? Has the one committe he chairs, met?

I can't do your research for you.  Obama has hardly been inactive.  If you want to educate yourself, I encourage it.

Bush has done some damage, but I do not put the blame entirely on him. I put is on the nations(governments) that turned gutless when they saw we meant 'military' force in response to a military attack. Al Qada is not going to be stopped by a treaty. They are an ideal, not a nation.

This is fairly incoherent.  Who has said al Qaeda would be stopped with a treaty?  Who has suggested that we negotiate with them?

I also don't like Obama's promises for the nations economy. Tax increases and taking corporate profits. Bad bad economic policy.

I'm not sure how familiar you actually are with Obama's promises for the nation's economy.  Frankly, and please don't think I'm attacking you, I don't get the feeling you have done much research at all.  To quote Obama's own website, "The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans."  His plan is to help relieve middle-class tax burdens, not increase them.

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #384 on: June 05, 2008, 01:29:36 PM »
When our nation was in crisis, when terrorists struck at us and killed thousands of working men and women in the WTC, the majority of the globe rallied behind us.  They were shocked and disgusted by the actions of al Qaeda and they supported our endeavors to achieve justice by striking back.  To go to Afghanistan made sense, and the world had our back.  I would wager a pretty penny that we would not have that same support today, and the reason is that we have absolutely sullied our international reputation.

That said, I must ask - what is your definition of "smart international relations"?  Is it the tactics of the Bush administration?  Because from what I have seen, those tactics have failed on a staggering level. 

As for Pakistan, an ally does not remain an ally if she knowingly houses our enemies.  I applaud Obama for wanting to insure America's safety by actually bringing terrorists to justice.

If you really believe that refusing to speak to "problem countries" is wise, I would ask you to remember that Kennedy was speaking with Gorbachev on an almost daily basis at the height of the tensions between our nations.  I would venture to say that had Kennedy not done so, we might not be typing out our opinions about politics at all. 

The Republican party has frequently claimed that Iran does not deserve the privilege of speaking to us.  The arrogance that sentiment carries is absolute hubris.  Diplomacy is supposed to be our strength.  If we are not willing to speak to our enemies, there can be no resolutions.  I feel much better about the idea of rational discourse than muscle comparisons.

As for Iran - they may have nukes, but at the moment they have no way to launch them anywhere on our soil.  Iran doesn't have ICBMs.  They don't have nuclear submarines.  They have no infastructure with which to threaten our borders.  The same applies to North Korea.

Obama was asked "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama responded, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/)

Asked if he were still willing to meet without precondition during his first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez, Obama said, "I do. Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Preconditions means that we won't meet with people unless they've already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, 'We won't meet with you until you've agreed to all the terms that we've laid out,' from their perspective that's not a negotiation, that's not a meeting." (Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_blog_extra_obama_on_meet.html)

Well, to quote Newt Gingrich: "Abraham Lincoln served two years in the US House, and seemed to do all right."  :P  Obama may not be a senior senator, but he is hardly some damp-eared pup.  He spent eight years in the Illinois senate before his two years in the US Senate.  Currently, he serves on three of the four senate committees dealing with foreign policy issues.  He's the chair of a subcommittee that is responsible for American relations with the European Union and NATO.  He graduated from Columbia University with a political science degree specializing in foreign relations.  Don't buy into the bullshit about him being too green to handle the presidency.  It's just not true.
Honestly I agree on all points Vix raised. Well done. You even sited your sources.

Now alot of people have said Hillary will be VP. I highly doubt it. She does not bring anything to the ticket for Obama. White working class rural blue collar votes? Um...? All the white working class rural blue collar types would rather vote for McCain. That is just a fact, call it racism or the religious right but they will not be in his corner no matter if he took Hillary, Bill and the entire cast of the Blue Collar Comedy tour.

She brings experience? He is running on change and breaking with the old way of doing business in Washington. Taking her really does nullify that argument. Not to mention all the back room deals she has made over the past two years. Has anyone looked at some of the Pacts that were funding her campaign? Major political lobbies one and all. Please go to HillaryClinton.com and pledge your 5$ my ass. Now she needs every middleclass dime to stay out of bankruptcy, 'cause all the big money said sayonara.

She deserves it: for the way the media treated her, dealing with the sexism, her running a great campaign, to bring her supporters in, 'cause Fat Bill fucked it up for her? Man what a bunch of crap right there. In 2006 EVERY media pundint had her all but crowned. She was a juggernaut. It was decided and the primaries were just a formality. Then SHE got... well lets be honest, she really didn't see Obama coming. Only in the last 4 months has she actually campaigned. And hell half the bruises Obama has taken have been self inflicted! Either from inside his own campaign (or proxies)or from his own mouth. If she actually would have came out swinging or even really differed from Obama in ANY way other than the dangley bits and tint, she might have won.

Obama ran the better campaign. He kept it civil. Avoided bringing up Fat Bill's term. Whitewater or Monica anyone? She whined. Whined about the media, whined about the sexism, whined about the DNC's own friggan' rules. Hell. Obama said finally,  "Fine! Whatever, here is half of what you want. You still can't catch me in delegates." Now she is sulking. No thank you Hillary. You showed America your true colors. You felt entitled. Thank god we slapped you down.

Now McCain...Man what a bunch of Republican bullsh... reinventing yourself ;). I miss the John McCain of 2000. You remember him right? He called Pat Robertson an "Agent of Intolerance." Woohoo! That was great. How he got beat by that retarded,self delusional, ex-coke head, C student who lived most of his ADULT life on Daddie's dime is beyond me. Oh wait that's right, G.W. played dirty. Hell of dirty actually. He brought up that John McCain had a black daughter. He made it look like he fathered her out of wedlock and never mentioning that she was ADOPTED! Yeah McCain stuck his foot in his mouth by bad mouthing the religious right, big business, and the pork belly politics. But G.W. drug him down to the mud hole and stomped him in and it worked.

But who said that line about old dogs and new tricks? Johny is an old dog but he has learned some new tricks. If Obama (or his stupid pastors. Why they even matter is BEYOND me anyway but...) doesn't shoot himself in the foot to much more they will have a series of debates spanning the next 10 WEEKS! Nullifying Obama's money advantage by helping McCain get TV time right along side him. I hope it turns out like the Nixon/Kennedy debates. Oh and that Obama has more good sense than to drive around in a convertable.

I may not agree with every tiny thing but I applaid you two.  You make me feel a little less like shit for being American.  You let me know that we have SOME intelligent votes out there and I just want to say it makes me proud!

Offline calamity

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #385 on: June 05, 2008, 01:33:05 PM »
I may not agree with every tiny thing but I applaid you two.  You make me feel a little less like shit for being American.  You let me know that we have SOME intelligent votes out there and I just want to say it makes me proud!

*smiles*  I don't know nearly as much as I would like to, but I do think wanting to be informed is the first step.  Liberal or conservative, if you don't know what you're talking about to at least some degree, you should not be anywhere near a voting booth.

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #386 on: June 05, 2008, 01:35:17 PM »
*smiles*  I don't know nearly as much as I would like to, but I do think wanting to be informed is the first step.  Liberal or conservative, if you don't know what you're talking about to at least some degree, you should not be anywhere near a voting booth.

I completely agree. 

Offline Kathadon

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #387 on: June 05, 2008, 01:40:59 PM »
Honestly I agree with off shore oil drilling. The biggest obstacle though is not the environmentalists though. It is the Richy, rich beachside yacht club set. You know the Republican types. Hell some company put a windfarm 30 miles off the coast of Nantucket or someplace on the east coast and the blue bloods threw a fit. They were only dots on the horizon from the beach. *shakes his head sadly*

Now drilling in Alaska? No. No no no no. It is friggan' expensive to drill up there. Supplies, manpower, logistics..all of that makes it really not much of a help for us economically if each barrel costs twice as much initially to produce before it hits the market! Not worth it, unless we were litterally down to our last drop.

But hopefully in 5 years oil will be a non-issue. Detroit has read the writing on the wall Gm says so ::). Soon the hydrogen car will be in every garage and free range chickens (hopefully bird flue free ;)) will be in ever pot.

Bush is the only idiot that put his country in a war lasting 5 years and lowered taxes on the top 5% that pays around 15% of our budget.....That should raise a red flag right their. Honestly, if you took all the lower 75% of tax payers and added all our taxes together we would not equal the taxes paid by ONE oil company alone per year. So I am fairly sure we can weather some of Obama's reforms.

if you don't know what you're talking about to at least some degree, you should not be anywhere near a voting booth.

That is so very true Vix.

I am a news junky myself CNN, Fox ::), The Daily Show, even the sunday political talk. My S.O. hates it but she admits she is much more informed now than before we got together. ;D

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #388 on: June 05, 2008, 01:41:52 PM »
 On the research I agree. It is important to do it. I'll try and do some research. It's just not a skill I'm good at on the internet. /sigh

 
Quote
Also, I don't care how many administrations refused to talk to North Korea.  That doesn't mean it's the best course of action today.  Barack Obama isn't claiming that he's going to set up a tea party with Kim Jung Il or Ahmadinejad.  He's saying that he would be willing to meet with those leaders under the right circumstances with intent to bridge the gap between our nations.  I can't see, no matter how hard I squint, how that is a harmful outlook.

 Point, as long as it's done in a way to not give them much face when they do it. I do not want to give them a diplomatic coup if talks happen.

 
Quote
I don't recall ever saying that we created Cuba's problems.  Also, being the only nation in the world that refuses to trade with Cuba is hardly something to boast about.  We're also one of the only nations in the world to use the Imperial system.  *winks*

 I know, but I have read and heard the US news media blame the US for Cuba's problems, or (worse) praise Cuba as a model for us to follow. Communism.. fails every time it's tried. *shudders*

 I prefer the Imperial system, it works. 'If it's not broken, don't fix it'.

 
Quote
I doubt strongly that someone as diplomatically inclined as Barack Obama would storm into Pakistan and shit all over their carpet without extremely good reasons.  The thing is, this is a complete hypothetical.  There are far too many ifs involved to have a coherent discussion about this.  Obama's point wasn't that he'd actively seek to ruin our relationship with Pakistan.

 I have to see if I can find the quote, but I know he said that if the US commanders had solid intell, they would go in wether Pakistan's rulers agreed or not. Given the nature of the war over there. Obama would have to give the go within a very short time period. Most likely in less than a half hour. that is not long enough to get permission from Pakistan for a military strike in most cases. Unfortunately it is not a good situation when the enemy can hide in the populace.

 
Quote
I'm not sure how familiar you actually are with Obama's promises for the nation's economy.  Frankly, and please don't think I'm attacking you, I don't get the feeling you have done much research at all.  To quote Obama's own website, "The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans."  His plan is to help relieve middle-class tax burdens, not increase them.

 Of course it gives those who made over $1 million more, because the tax cut was an income tax cut. They pay more because they make more. In income taxes, the wealthy pay far more than the middle and lower class. Over half of the total amount. that's why when there is a income tax cut, they get more back. It makes simple sense. Those that pay the tax, should get some back. Or is it fair to have a man who pays $1 million in taxes back the same amount as a man that pays $5ooo in taxes? Maybe the richer man should get $20,000 back? Or is that too high?
 In Democrate eyes, that is too high. They want to take everyone who earns(this excludes money you already have, like trust groups or previous earnings) above a amount they set, to pay much more. They forget that those that have the money, also spend it. They own businesses, stock and the money is spent.

 Whar frightens me most about the Democrats is they will willingly ruin and tax the wealthy, while excluding themselves in order to 'give' it back to the people. People who have not earned it. Wealth redistribution.


Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #389 on: June 05, 2008, 01:43:42 PM »
 I don't have access to TV or cable, so the only news I get is from the radio and internest. All of which is suspect to one degree or another.

Offline calamity

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #390 on: June 05, 2008, 01:49:18 PM »
I don't have access to TV or cable, so the only news I get is from the radio and internest. All of which is suspect to one degree or another.

It's good to be discerning when it comes to news sources!  On that note, though, I would say that cable news is hardly less suspect than radio or Internet sources.  :P  Pundits are garbage.  Stick with the boring stuff, like C-SPAN.  That's the true "no spin zone".  :D

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #391 on: June 05, 2008, 01:56:50 PM »
 most news sources are suspect, but trying to find ones that 1; awknowledge they are biased, or 2; try to be as fair as possible, is harder when your access is limited.
 
 Right now, the computer I normally used, is down. Hardware problems. *grumbles* so I am using my children's comp and it has no sound, which means YouTube or video clips are out as well. I can only read stuff. Which sucks, I like listening to music. I can even play any computer games!

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #392 on: June 05, 2008, 02:11:25 PM »
 
Quote
But hopefully in 5 years oil will be a non-issue. Detroit has read the writing on the wall Gm says so . Soon the hydrogen car will be in every garage and free range chickens (hopefully bird flue free ) will be in ever pot.

 If we can make hydrogen. It takes a lot of electricty to make. Nuclear power plants, yeah!

 
Quote
Bush is the only idiot that put his country in a war lasting 5 years and lowered taxes on the top 5% that pays around 15% of our budget.....That should raise a red flag right their. Honestly, if you took all the lower 75% of tax payers and added all our taxes together we would not equal the taxes paid by ONE oil company alone per year. So I am fairly sure we can weather some of Obama's reforms.

 You forgot that he also, with congress's help, increased spending by alot too. Lower taxes did work in reinvigorating the economy. The money the government takes in, as taxes has increased to higher volume of spending by people and corporations. It's the spending the government does that breaks the bank. The problem is that if corporations are taxed to a higher level, they do not pay the cost. It is passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices.

 Congress does not realize, or chooses to ignore that fact. The oil companies are investigated everytime the price of oil/fuel goes up and every single time, they have been found innocent of any price gouging. Obama's 'reforms' will end up hurting the consumer he says he is wanting to help, and when the middle/lower class cries out for help, who will be there to provide it in the form of subsidies? the new/increased governmental programs. Which get their money from the taxes they impose at higher levels.

 Very very few Governmental programs are ever reduced in size from year to year. Every time the buget comes around, more money is asked/demanded for the programs. Never less. If the people have to tighten their belts and give up a few things when times are tough, why shouldn't the government do the same?
 .... I just realized I took the topic off track, so..
 /end rant.

 Back on topic. Democrats seem to = higher taxes, increased spending and more regulations and restrictions on peoples lifes and liberties. all in the name of 'safety and decency'. (anti gun too)

 The current Republicans are nearly as bad.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #393 on: June 05, 2008, 03:32:54 PM »
Those Federal dollars are not free we trade them for our FREEDOM. A dollar given is a dollar we can't spend, save for college, pay for the education of a child, give to charity or whatever WE want to do. Now the government has to be there to provide minimal services such as a national defense. And worse for my view on this is they control us the government was founded to be contained the entire Constitution is effectively restraints of the Federal level and a support of the States and individual rights. Now for some reason the States and our forefathers allowed the Federal government to restrain us and knell to them for crusts of bread. And both parties are handing them out to us. I want the Federal government to be small, contained and impact us very little like the first century. They collected some taxes but very little and were working restrained by the Constitution then things changed, when or where I am still trying to figure out. As far as I'm concerned the entire Federal government is illegal and violating the Constitution and I no longer have to recognize them. You want to see real terrorists look to Washington, the only ones that I fear are not overseas its the people running the Federal government in the United States they are selling us out dollar by dollar, driving us into debt dollar by dollar and if either party gets in again its still going to continue.

So I will vote Libertarian at least they want to undo this mess, they won't get elected I know, but they are the only party I respect. They earned my vote with actions and with ideas. I see voting for either party as utterly devoid of value its just voting for the same old thing.

Offline The Overlord

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #394 on: June 05, 2008, 06:26:35 PM »

 That made me shudder. As much as people like him, he just doesn't have the experiance. Especially at international relations. He has said things that convince me of that.
 
 

So then, there's the little dilemma we face. Do we elect a relative newcomer who some accuse of inexperience, who has consistently shown in his political career to date that he's advocate of doing the right thing? Or do we elect an aging candidate who's been neck deep in politics and will just keep us mired in the same shit, even though we all (hopefully) realize it needs to change?


The thing is, early on, I really liked McCain, I really did. I was of the opinion even last year that if we were going to get another Republican in office, I was hoping for him. He's experienced, he's intelligent, I find him a likable guy overall that I could listen to.


And then he opened his mouth and I listened, and that's when I realized we just can't afford to get this guy in office.


McCain is playing a clever little shell game. He's working some nice PR, trying his best to distance himself from the hemorrhaging Bush administration, all the while standing firm on the exact same things. He's acting like he's alternative to Brand X, but in reality he's just Brand X in another package, and sadly, a lot of conservative voters are going to be thoroughly and utterly duped by this, just as they were duped by the Bush campaign. It's very, very hard for me to have any respect for that level of blind ignorance, but it's not entirely their fault, because McCain is going to play their fears like a yo-yo, just like Bush.

Many of McCain's supporters will vote for him simply because he is Republican. Likewise, many of Clinton's supporters voted for her simply on the grounds that she's a woman.

Many voted for Obama because he's black. Many won't vote for Obama because he is black. Some won't vote for him because his middle name is Hussein, and because his Kenyan father was raised Muslim and gradually moved to atheism. I'm sure to the white supremacist groups that are still infesting the woodwork out there like maggots, Barack Obama is their worst nightmare come true.


And if the lowest common denominator scores the winning shot this year, I weep for the future of this country. There's that old saying, only a fool fights in a burning house. We're still judging our leaders on their gender or race, and we could have a much higher level of maturity as a society, we should have a much higher level of maturity as a society. Along with death and taxes, the one thing that never fails is my fellow man's capacity to disappoint and disgust me.


The War on Terror has been the Red Scare all over again. This is not to imply that the threat is nonexistent, because it surely exists, but people....people....wake up and smell the god damned coffee. What we're hearing from the Bush administration since 9/11 and what's actually been going on is apples and oranges. The War on Terror has largely been a distraction as this administration ravages the environment, squanders America's respect on the global stage, and erodes inalienable rights with the Patriot Act and its ilk.

McCain can be expected to do little better. As I already said, I was hopeful and optimistic of him at first. I said, he's a guy that saw the ugly ass-end of war first hand, spent five years as a POW. Not very prone to toss other people into what he's seen firsthand.

I expected him to be a staunch defender of our nation, but not to frivolously throw our troops in harm's way for illegal reasons. We've been lied to on Iraq on years now. If you believe, if you honestly and truly believe we're there for anything but the oil (and perhaps this fantasy of spreading democracy in the Middle East like beams of happy sunshine), then you could contact Senator McCain with all due haste. I'm sure he's got a few acres of oceanfront property in his state of Arizona to reward you for your support.


But by his own words, he would keep us mired in the same shit in Iraq, and for god knows how many more years. He's pushing the ongoing scare of the 'rogue nations', and I'm sure the Axis of Evil isn't far from his vernacular either. For me, John McCain was a tremendous disappointment.


There is the growing belief that Obama is the right choice this year. He is a man of character, intelligence, integrity and morality that has often shown these qualities in his shorter political career, but also outside of it. I believe his relative lack of experience is largely overrated; just another brand of fear mongering from the right, and we're unfortunately trapped in years of that, so it's going to be hard for some people to climb out of that box.

Come down to it, Alexander the Great had ruled the known world by the age of 33. Granted, people lived a lot shorter lives in those days and were pretty damned ambitious, but there do come those leaders who defy statistics and start younger.

We get so jaded in politics these days because we know by and large Washington is a throng of criminals of the worst sort, often sucking and blowing lobbyists of big business and religion for their endorsement. Concern for the common good and the right thing is often nonexistent. As far as republics go, we're long overdue for revolution.

Often revolutions come violent and bloody, but we can get them more subtly too. We're still looking at the legacy of a Republican revolution that started in the 1960's and has been with us ever since, regardless of who sat in the Oval Office. But it's been said once a revolution is over and the instigators are holding on just to avoid relinquishing power, then it's time for them to go.

I believe the danger lies partially in being so jaded, that we miss a potentially great candidate when they do come along. I believe we should vote the right man in office, even if that man is a woman, but in Clinton's case, she isn't the right woman. At some point we will have a woman in office, but we didn't get a good choice this time.

It's time to turn the page. I am a white American citizen and I have already given Obama my vote in my state's primary. And now I'm going to give him my vote in November. Not because his race or gender or background matters to me, but because I am convinced he is the right choice.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 06:35:07 PM by The Overlord »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #395 on: June 05, 2008, 10:55:58 PM »
 I don't think any of them are the right choice. It all comes down to what you think is the lesser of three evils.

Offline Brittlby

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #396 on: June 05, 2008, 11:43:18 PM »
I don't think any of them are the right choice. It all comes down to what you think is the lesser of three evils.

I agree sadly. I think it was Lewis Black who said the Republicans are the party of bad ideas, while the Democrats are the party of no ideas.

Obama's three main priorities are curbing dependence on foreign oil, ending the war in Iraq, and an overhaul of healthcare.

Now... the poster above you says Obama's "relative lack of experience is largely overrated", and is essentially being blown out of proportion by the Right.

I would wonder "relative" to what first of all, but more importantly, is his lack of experience overrated? This is after all the presidency. Looking at Obama's career, yes, he IS an advocate for doing the right thing. But short of minor immigration reform and a war deescalation bill, what has he actually accomplished?

My point is, how does he actually intend to meet any of these goals? His plan for Universal Health Care is essentially a bar napkin with "universal health care would be awesome" scribbled on it. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. He hasn't considered the economic ramifications of his proposed healthcare plan, which will burden an already struggling business economy, while at the same time shooting insurance companies in the foot by forcing them to cover preexisting ailments.

Boohoo. Big businesses and insurance companies lose out. So what?

So we add fuel to the fire, which in this metaphor is the reccession we keep hearing so much about. Dramatic and sweeping policy change is difficult if not impossible to enact smoothly.  Much the same with the war and his energy "policy" if we're going to call it that, his proposed plans are half baked and sweetened with pixie dust. He can and will promise you the world, but if accomplishing these things were easy, it would be done already.

Yes. Experience is important.

Right now I haven't any faith in him to accomplish these goals, because he doesn't really even have a scope of the tasks, let alone the skill to tackle them. He's promising too much when he's delivered so little in the past.

And what's gone entirely unmentioned is curbing the powers of the executive branch. Which candidate has come out and said they're going to tighten the parameters of the presidential signing statement?

None? You're kidding!

Offline The Overlord

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #397 on: June 06, 2008, 01:51:41 AM »


Now... the poster above you says Obama's "relative lack of experience is largely overrated", and is essentially being blown out of proportion by the Right.

I would wonder "relative" to what first of all, but more importantly, is his lack of experience overrated? This is after all the presidency. Looking at Obama's career, yes, he IS an advocate for doing the right thing. But short of minor immigration reform and a war deescalation bill, what has he actually accomplished?

My point is, how does he actually intend to meet any of these goals? His plan for Universal Health Care is essentially a bar napkin with "universal health care would be awesome" scribbled on it. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. He hasn't considered the economic ramifications of his proposed healthcare plan, which will burden an already struggling business economy, while at the same time shooting insurance companies in the foot by forcing them to cover preexisting ailments.



I would say relative to some other presidents, but then again, experience has showed us that experience is not the deciding factor.


After all, while Bush's intelligence has often been called into question, lack of experience has never really come up, at least not from what I've seen. He has his own political experience before his two terms. His daddy was president, and his daddy's boss was president for two terms. If you factor in Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the cabinet, Bush has had a dream team assembled for him (at least from a hard-right perspective).


Yet despite all this, Bush has royally and utterly fucked things up like no administration before him; if this is Republican experience, I shudder to think what their inexperienced candidates might have done.

The Republican camp has had their shot, and they've blown it shamefully. Nothing that's come from either the Clinton or McCain campaigns has indicated they would even try for something markedly different. Only Obama is speaking boldly and outside the box.


In this line of thinking, tell me what has this president accomplished? We're ass-deep in war and debt; to elect a Bush to office is to elect a blood and oil soaked military-industrial machine to office. McCain will be little different, doomed to continue the same tragic and critical blunders.


So, regarding Obama; can he do it? It would be naive to think his administration can deliver on all that it's promising...none of them ever do. His biggest hurdles, IMHO, will be the 'enemy camp.' What good that Bill Clinton tried to do in office was mostly stymied and overshadowed by the Republican machine. But unlike Bill, Barak seems to have kept his political nose clean so far; at least if he's got skeletons in the closet, they haven't been found and ousted yet. He hasn't messed with his secretary or gotten into any major financial scandals, not enough to stop his momentum. He's taken down Clinton, and virtually every poll projection shows him leading McCain nationally, whereas Clinton has dragged behind. There is strong reason to believe that Obama will deliver on everything that time and circumstance allows him to.

Hillary has pushed herself as the strongest candidate to defeat McCain, but this is pure folly, and the majority clearly didn't agree.

Likewise, both Clinton and McCain have dismissed Obama's aims as lofty, pie in the sky optimism. They have used very tiring and insulting rhetoric to this effect; they have spoken to the American public as if they were unschooled children. There are times I've wished I could bash Hillary squarely in the jaw.

THEY DON'T WANT the kind of change that Obama is advocating. High American government is a moldy, festering casserole of blundered mistakes and special interests, left to sit decaying on the shelf for decades, and many of them are happy to keep it as it is, because it works for them. Not us, but them.


But again, I take us back to the same question. Do you vote for a conventional candidate that will deliver us only more SSDD instead of support the one candidate that is pushing for serious change, simply because you believe he has no chance of ever effecting such change?


This sort of thinking is jaded, blind, and defeatist, and it's exactly what the establishment wants and expects of us. Vote against Obama simply on the ground that you believe he can never deliver, then don't complain to me when the McCain administration finishes the job Bush started and drives the nation head-first down a Texas double-wide shitter.

Obama started as the underdog, but he started a snowstorm of momentum. Obama supporters are not happy go lucky, overly optimistic people that believe in fairy tales; rather they took 'Yes We Can' to heart because they know the momentum that determined Americans can carry if you get enough of them rolling on something. Experience shows when you get enough Americans moving in one direction, it changes history. How it all comes out in the end, only time will tell, but we won't know if we don't try.

If America rolls under as a nation and becomes a pacified bastion of pussies that knuckle under to the status quo, then I say to hell with America, fuck the US, we'll have gotten what we earned.

This is NOT what this nation was founded on. Enough good and educated people out there gave Obama his nomination, and now it's no coincidence that McCain is changing the tune and slogan of his campaign to shadow Obama's. They all recognize the threat this poses to the establishment. If he's got the guts to challenge them, then the least we can do is have the guts to support him.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 01:55:46 AM by The Overlord »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #398 on: June 08, 2008, 04:53:56 AM »
As a side note to this post:

The Republican camp has had their shot, and they've blown it shamefully. Nothing that's come from either the Clinton or McCain campaigns has indicated they would even try for something markedly different. Only Obama is speaking boldly and outside the box.

Obama has been pushing outside the box because he has to. It wouldn't do him any good to, say, promise the same things Clinton is, because he needs to distinguish himself as an individual, not just "that young black dude that I think is running for Prez". He needs to make people sit up and take notice. Proposing sweeping change is a way to do this.

That said, racism is a factor. I just recently moved up from the panhandle of Florida - what may as well be southern Alabama for all the conservatives that live there. People who don't live below the Mason-Dixon line - people in the industrial northeast especially - don't quite believe that racism is alive and well in this country. Most cannot wrap their heads around the concept of only stopping for gas in certain parts of town in an emergency if your skin is the wrong colour. If you're smart, you gas up before you head over that way. If you're stupid and have to stop, you get your gas, pay at the pump, and get your ass out of there. This is the climate we still have in this country.

Am I saying that every person who lives in the south is a racist, and that nobody in the north is? No. I am saying that it only takes one crazy with a gun to stop Obama's plans dead in their tracks, no pun intended. This country is not ready for a black president... I don't care if he's being accused of not being 'black enough' (what the fuck is that, anyway?). I do not think Obama will last 4 years as president. We may be ready for a white woman... but we are not ready for a black man. We just aren't.

And putting track record, inexperience and whatnot aside, that is what makes me extremely hesitant to vote for Barack Obama.

Offline Kathadon

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #399 on: June 08, 2008, 05:05:18 AM »
I understand and hear this argument alot Trieste even in the Midwest. The whole he is gonna get assassinated thing though, as an argument not to vote for the man? Why? Would you feel you had blood on your own hands if you voted for him and he gets killed? I think he knows the risks and it is a little known fact that of all the democratic primaries Obama AND Hillary have had double to triple the number of secret service agents that the republican front runners had. He is taking precautions against just this sort of thing.

Now to not vote or even to be hesitant to vote for the man because of this fear is letting the internal terrorists win. So to speak. I am sure the white power movements are throwing tantrums right now, as I type this.

Besides politicians do not go driving around in convertables anymore we have A.C. ;)