i still think the whole problem with the democracy here is that who becomes an elected official is left in the hands of the people. a single person is smart, can think for themselves, and (HOLY HELL COULD IT BE?) make a decision based on facts. PEOPLE on the other hand, are excitable, stupid, and will generally follow a mob mentality. now, i don't claim to be very intelligent, in the grand scheme of things, i'd say im mediocre at best, but to me, there has got to be a batter way, but i don't know it. i generally don't like people, i don't trust people, and i'd be much happier to be left to my own devices by myself in the woods living off what the land provides than be governed.
JBO Stickers! Get yours today!
redecocav wrote:So some of you think a woman could not be President? A black man could not be VP? So for the rest of all time the winning party should consist of 2 white males? Thats an ignorant statement. Some of you need to grow up and join the rest of us in the new era. Women arent just house wives anymore.
i could care less what a person's skin color or genitalia are.....i vote by how they act and what they think/believe. the thing i am afraid of (which was brought up earlier in this thread) was that certain minorities will vote for their counterparts JUST BECAUSE. many middle class white bread people will do the same thing...theyll think "oh, how progressive!" and want to join in and rally around their cause because itll make them feel better. thats BS and we all know it, or at least SHOULD know it.
that ^^^ and the fact that most people hate bush are the biggest threats to the presidency this next election. people wont want a republican pres anymore and hillary will probably get the democratic nom...that doesnt leave much in the way of figuring out what will happen.
i certainly hope that people will vote with their heads for once, but somehow i doubt thatll happen. why start now?
I think a woman could be president. But Hilary is NOT that woman.
What qualifies her to be president? The fact that she was a pot smoking hippie, her husband dodged the draft and went to Canada when my Dad and thousands of others Volunteered to go to Vietnam, her 2 years in the Senate on the Liberal propaganda and hippie tree hugging/gun hating commitee's?
Give me a break. I am glad most of the people on her are against her.
Those who said they want the president to do nothing need not blame the president for doing all kinds of stuff, they need to blame the "vocal minority" You know who they are, they are the people who don't contribute anything to society and hate the military, yet they find all kinds of time to protest wars, sign petitions, and lobby washington to get their rediculous agenda's carried out, such as: ban guns, allow full term abortions, welfare for anyone who decides not to work, let bunnies vote(PETA), stop drilling for oil(yet they all drove to the protest) , allow homosexuals to marry(even though they are freaks of nature) etc
2004 WR Blue/silver STi
Cobb Stage II
12.69 @ 106.1mph 1.66 = 60ft
Luke: a few points:
Clinton didn't dodge the draft. He had secured a birth in the Navy's version of the National Guard (as I remember), until his entrance into Rhodes was secured. He actually didn't need to have strings pulled too badly. (Compare that to Dubya, who was valliantly defending the skies of Houston against Viet Cong incursion, and never would have finished his full Texas ANG duty without being comped 75 service credits after going to Tennessee to help a friend of his Dad's get elected) when he finished his time @ Rhodes, the war was over.
Hillary never left the US, either. And I'll take a pot smoking hippie over an entitled coke sniffing drunk.
If you're going to base your vote off perception, and not stance or ideology, you really oughtn't vote IMHO. However, in order for democracy to work, you really ought to get more people out to the polls: 50.4% (last federal election turn out) shouldn't be considered a real election. Never mind who wants to vote.
And, as for gays marrying: no one is forcing any church to marry them, and they're asking for the same protections and advantages as hetero couples. Look at it like this: They're no different to the greater populace than a married couple that has no kids.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
EGAD!!!
Brilliant man, BRILLIANT!!!
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Luke: a few points:
Clinton didn't dodge the draft. He had secured a birth in the Navy's version of the National Guard (as I remember), until his entrance into Rhodes was secured. He actually didn't need to have strings pulled too badly. (Compare that to Dubya, who was valliantly defending the skies of Houston against Viet Cong incursion, and never would have finished his full Texas ANG duty without being comped 75 service credits after going to Tennessee to help a friend of his Dad's get elected) when he finished his time @ Rhodes, the war was over.
Hillary never left the US, either. And I'll take a pot smoking hippie over an entitled coke sniffing drunk.
If you're going to base your vote off perception, and not stance or ideology, you really oughtn't vote IMHO. However, in order for democracy to work, you really ought to get more people out to the polls: 50.4% (last federal election turn out) shouldn't be considered a real election. Never mind who wants to vote.
And, as for gays marrying: no one is forcing any church to marry them, and they're asking for the same protections and advantages as hetero couples. Look at it like this: They're no different to the greater populace than a married couple that has no kids.
Who says I was defend the W in my post. I didnt mention anything about our current president did I? However, he did have a marked degree of government experience being the Governor of Texas for quite some time. Hillary's experience is being the wife of a governor, the wife of a president, and a puppet senator of a state where she never lived. Now I am a military helicopter pilot, and my wife has been with me all through flight school, through service in the fleet Marine force, and through deployments to Iraq. Does that mean she is qualified to pilot my aircraft? In my above post I used insults to disqualify Hillary for president, but I guess its obvious to most that she disqualifies herself.
And as for the election between Bush and Kerry, that was the largest turnout for a presdential election in a long time. Over 122 million or 56% of voting age population. MUCH HIGHER than the 1996 and 2000 elections when Mr. Bill Clinton was elected. So I guess those werent real elections either.
2004 WR Blue/silver STi
Cobb Stage II
12.69 @ 106.1mph 1.66 = 60ft
redecocav wrote:So some of you think a woman could not be President? A black man could not be VP? So for the rest of all time the winning party should consist of 2 white males? Thats an ignorant statement. Some of you need to grow up and join the rest of us in the new era. Women arent just house wives anymore.
Sadly, some people don't recognize that yet. God forbid they do anything other than laundry and making dinner.
Knoxfire wrote:I'd vote for Pat Buchanan before I'd vote for her. Women aren't made for politics. Nagging a husband is one thing. Nagging a country is another. I never really liked how she got all mad at Bill for the Lewinski thing. He's the President. He should be allowed a few indulgences.
President or not, he disrespected his marriage and that's pretty ignorant for you to say cheating is ok because he is in a position of power.
And how much more stereotypical could be you be about a woman nagging?
Try to post something with some substance next time, other than that, you make Bush Jr. look like a genius.
Luke wrote:Who says I was defend the W in my post. I didnt mention anything about our current president did I? However, he did have a marked degree of government experience being the Governor of Texas for quite some time. Hillary's experience is being the wife of a governor, the wife of a president, and a puppet senator of a state where she never lived. Now I am a military helicopter pilot, and my wife has been with me all through flight school, through service in the fleet Marine force, and through deployments to Iraq. Does that mean she is qualified to pilot my aircraft? In my above post I used insults to disqualify Hillary for president, but I guess its obvious to most that she disqualifies herself.
I was comparing and contrasting, you brought up the mistaken idea that Clinton was a draft dodger, as if that had anything to do with Hillary.
Also, are you forgetting that Hillary Clinton is a Senator from New York? Dubya had no legislative assembly experience at all before becoming Governor of Texas, apply your argument about your military experience to Dubya... His dad was a Senator, VP, President... where exactly does that qualify him for the job? He's worked campaigns to get people elected, but real legislative assembly work, nothing... he's been the guy that signed the bills.
If you want to say she disqualifies herself, don't use insults, use real, concrete examples. My advice: If you want to be taken at all seriously, don't fire off a post from the hip (like the homosexual post, RatZero defeated all of your ideas in subsequent posts with one link). Think about it, figure out where you stand, and then try and find something to support your ideas, and maybe learn and adjust your ideas.
Quote:
And as for the election between Bush and Kerry, that was the largest turnout for a presdential election in a long time. Over 122 million or 56% of voting age population. MUCH HIGHER than the 1996 and 2000 elections when Mr. Bill Clinton was elected. So I guess those werent real elections either.
Clinton was elected in 1992, and 1996. There was 55.1% turnout in 1992, versus a 55.3% turnout of eligible aged voters.... Of REGISTERED voters, 69% in 2000, 78% in 1992. Don't take my word on that though:
Link.
There were less people in the USA at the time, so numbers would be lower, but there was higher turn out of registered voters. Either way, ~50% turn out is not consensus.
The thing that made me laugh was that Dubya stated that he had a "mandate" and had earned "political capital" that he was going to spend. Bare in mind that 23% of Americans of voting age voted for him... that's not a mandate, that's not political capital, that's getting in on the skin of your teeth.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
She just wants to one up on Bill when she gets in office .. it's all about the payback ... what a @#$% !
just a rumor i'm starting .. lol
Luke wrote:I think a woman could be president. But Hilary is NOT that woman.
What qualifies her to be president? The fact that she was a pot smoking hippie, her husband dodged the draft and went to Canada when my Dad and thousands of others Volunteered to go to Vietnam, her 2 years in the Senate on the Liberal propaganda and hippie tree hugging/gun hating commitee's?
Give me a break. I am glad most of the people on her are against her.
Those who said they want the president to do nothing need not blame the president for doing all kinds of stuff, they need to blame the "vocal minority" You know who they are, they are the people who don't contribute anything to society and hate the military, yet they find all kinds of time to protest wars, sign petitions, and lobby washington to get their rediculous agenda's carried out, such as: ban guns, allow full term abortions, welfare for anyone who decides not to work, let bunnies vote(PETA), stop drilling for oil(yet they all drove to the protest) , allow homosexuals to marry(even though they are freaks of nature) etc
Look, I don't like Hilary but... your argument against her is just plain... stupid. I mean you could have launched a real argument with real points as to why she shouldn't be president, but you didn't. You instead chose to go with a bunch of "points" that basically come out of the "Brainwashed Conservative Handbook." IMO, that puts you in the opposite but equal category of "Brainwashed Liberals"(the kind of people who tell you that they hate Bush, but cannot tell you a legit reason why(despite the fact that legit reasons to hate him are a-dime-a-dozen)). Lay off the propaganda.
snoeterp82 wrote:Sadly, some people don't recognize that yet. God forbid they do anything other than laundry and making dinner.
That's just not true - Women also need to wash dishes, clean furniture, windows, and such. Plus they are also celebrated beer fetchers. Now be a good girl and get back in the kitchen.
LOL you know I'm J/K
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
A vote for Hillary is a vote for higher taxes! I had links up here long time ago that show where shes said that the govt knows how to spend the peoples money better then they do and that taxes IF SHE WAS PRESIDENT would be 50% of what people made. That way the govt could divide the money how it saw fit. HELLO SOCIALISM!
The only thing Obama brings to the table is his skin color, sorry but its true. So far I haven't heard ONE SINGLE thing from him to prove otherwise. Until I hear what his stance is on the issues that directly effect me and my family like Hillary's 50% tax he won't be getting my vote either. Vote for me the black guy isn't exactly a stirring political platform IMO.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Clinton: Would you rather higher taxes now or crippling debt later? You've already got record debt and deficits how do you propose to pay for it? .
Obama: he's got idealism and passion. I dare say that's a sounder base (for the voters) than money and treachery.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Clinton: Would you rather higher taxes now or crippling debt later? You've already got record debt and deficits how do you propose to pay for it? .
Obama: he's got idealism and passion. I dare say that's a sounder base (for the voters) than money and treachery.
Any time your at war you have high debt. And NO I'd rather the govt learn how to spend the money the steal from us better then try to steal more.
As for Obama, like I said I haven't heard anything from him that effects me or my family that any other canidate isn't spewing too. So all he brings to the table is his race. I'll vote for him IF he seems like he'd do a good job but so far I don't know enough about him.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
The thing is, the fall out from Bush-o-nomics is going to necessitate higher taxes no matter who gets elected. The only thing you can hope is that they're going to get Corporate "interests" to start footing their share of the bill. The high debt isn't a problem: Vietnam, Korea, WWII and all through the 90's: all those actions were bought and paid for in full within 5 years of their completion because of Tax appropriations. Iraq and Afghanistan are not likely to be paid off for about 15-20 years because of the deficit funding for the war, basically, the interest isn't getting paid off, and the debt mounts with the residual interest that isn't getting paid down.
Even if John McCain runs and wins, you're going to get a tax hike, or see deep cuts in military R&D funding (because the MIC isn't going to fund itself, and Soldiers are getting far less than most think they deserve).
I'd still rather see a guy that isn't interested in protecting his buddies in office. No just for Americans' sake.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Whoever runs (I will vote for Hillary), anyone would be better than W
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The thing is, the fall out from Bush-o-nomics is going to necessitate higher taxes no matter who gets elected. The only thing you can hope is that they're going to get Corporate "interests" to start footing their share of the bill. The high debt isn't a problem: Vietnam, Korea, WWII and all through the 90's: all those actions were bought and paid for in full within 5 years of their completion because of Tax appropriations. Iraq and Afghanistan are not likely to be paid off for about 15-20 years because of the deficit funding for the war, basically, the interest isn't getting paid off, and the debt mounts with the residual interest that isn't getting paid down.
Even if John McCain runs and wins, you're going to get a tax hike, or see deep cuts in military R&D funding (because the MIC isn't going to fund itself, and Soldiers are getting far less than most think they deserve).
I'd still rather see a guy that isn't interested in protecting his buddies in office. No just for Americans' sake.
This is a different war then we have EVER fought before. You can't look at every other war and say that not nearly as much has been spent cause WE have never been attacked on our home soil like we were on 9/11. Too much is way too different this time around.
And personialy I think Bush has done a good job, I mean hey I see no more planes hiting buildings do you? Well hes at least keeping us safe at home. Flame all you want and yes I agree he has made some mistakes but none worse then who he replaced.
I'd vote for him again in a second if he could run again.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jackalope wrote:This is a different war then we have EVER fought before. You can't look at every other war and say that not nearly as much has been spent cause WE have never been attacked on our home soil like we were on 9/11. Too much is way too different this time around.
The War of 1812 was fought on American soil. Although the war was declared by America, it was a response to not so nice British practices such as forcing American sailors to serve in the British armed services, supporting Native American raids against us(you could compare this with funding/supplying modern day "terrorists"), etc. During that war the white house got burned by them. Unlike the "war on terror" - this was a real war, not a mockery.
Pearl Harbor(aka WW2)? Needless to say, we where attacked by Japan in Hawaii(which last time I checked - is part of the USA). Unlike the "war on terror" - this was a real war, not a mockery.
Jackalope wrote:And personialy I think Bush has done a good job, I mean hey I see no more planes hiting buildings do you? Well hes at least keeping us safe at home.
Hey, for all you know - Hillary has been stopping planes from hitting our towers lol. Makes as much sense as attributing that to Bush, don't you think? There is no logic there. So just what makes you think that Bush & Co stopped anything? How do you know that there simply hasn't been another plane attack planned? Should I go into detail naming all the presidents who never had even 1 plane hit during their presidency? And does that fact really mean that they all prevented these attacks, or that they simply didn't happen?
I believe I mentioned to you before - (from The Simpsons)Lisa's rock that keeps tigers away(Bear Patrol episode). As evidence that it indeed does keep tiger's away, there where no tiger's around. That's about as much evidence as you have that "hes at least keeping us safe at home."
Jackalope wrote:Flame all you want and yes I agree he has made some mistakes but none worse then who he replaced
I have yet to see a list of mistakes from any previous president, or all previous presidents combined, that compares to his list of mistakes. Do we really need to go there? Dedicating all my free time, I doubt I'd have enough free time in a month... or 2. Honestly a list like that is better suited to a encyclopedia producer than someone like me. And yes this list starts well before 9/11. Before that, I used to read the paper daily - just to see "what he @!#$ed up today."
I can't believe that you'd vote for him again given the chance... Do you really hate America that bad?
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
not to be a dick but i think if either one of them get elected president someone is going to try and assasinate them.
http://www.gadomestics.com/
/sigh.
/packs bags.
/gives up.
That was a fun experiment.
Tech Tone Blog
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I'd still rather see a guy that isn't interested in protecting his buddies in office. No just for Americans' sake.
Do you plan on voting for a politician? Ok then, scratch that thought. Unless you vote for Ron Paul, of coarse.
What you said about taxes is partly true. We need to put more money towards the national debt and the new debt that our current administration has made for us. The trick is to stop the useless war, therefore stopping our spending spree, and re-prioritizing how we spend our tax dollars. There are many places where the government could be more efficient(that goes without saying), where they are trying to micro manage our lives and where they are just simply being stupid. The "Ds" typically want to raise taxes to "pay down the debt", which is fine if absolutely necessary, but we need to stop spending so much first and keep them from making unnecessary programs. The "Rs" typically want to keep taxes low and cut programs, but have been spending money like Ds lately. Recently, it's been welfare Vs. "corporate welfare".
Jackalope wrote:This is a different war then we have EVER fought before. You can't look at every other war and say that not nearly as much has been spent cause WE have never been attacked on our home soil like we were on 9/11. Too much is way too different this time around.
Very true, this war is VERY different. We are not fighting those that attacked us or even posed a threat to use. Unfortunately, our current administration decide to make what should have been a war on al Qaeda into a war on religious extremism and Iraqi nationalism. Make no mistake, this war will last forever if we let it. Before you say it, I am NOT a "defeatist", I am merely being realistic. I would love for America to defeat "terrorism", give Iraqis true freedom and bring our soldiers home. Unfortunately, here have been religious wars "over there" for a LONG time and to expect one nation to stop it with another WAR is ignorant at best. Therefor, it is permissible to do take issue with money spent on a VERY flawed "plan", IMHO. Any time we go to war with an abstract concept it should raise a red flag. One should be able to name their enemy or at least be able to narrow them down to a few SPECIFIC groups.
Jackalope wrote:And personialy I think Bush has done a good job, I mean hey I see no more planes hiting buildings do you? Well hes at least keeping us safe at home.
As stated by Bastardking3000, it is misleading to attribute this "achievement" to Bush or anyone, for that matter. Unless you know that the only reason that we have not been attacked over here is because of the invasion of Iraq, Bush deserves no praise. Even IF, it is preventing an attack here, the soldiers deserve an unimaginable amount of praise over Bush. Do I believe that it is preventing attacks? Nope, terror plots have been foiled by people in the "counter terrorism community" outside of Iraq since the war began, so they have people to spare and the means to conduct these plots. We may be diverting attention, but they will likely make another attempt on our soil, no matter when our soldiers come home. We have to start thinking long term and "win hearts and minds". We are doing a HORRIBLE job right now. It would also be nice to implement all of the 9/11 commissions recommendations.
Jackalope wrote: Flame all you want and yes I agree he has made some mistakes but none worse then who he replaced.
I'd vote for him again in a second if he could run again.
*shivers* There is no doubt that Clinton made mistakes such as NAFTA, the AWB and the sex scandal, to name a few. Bush, on the other hand has made many mistakes. I started to make a list, but there are so many and that would warrant it's own thread. Not the mention that there are lists on the intrawebz already. My main problem is that his foreign policy is lacking, he has mismanaged the war and he is bought and paid for by oil companies and big business. Again, before you say it, I don't hate capitalism or big profits for American companies. The problem is that Bush, the current bunch of republicans and some companies have should us out. Look at oil company tax breaks while they they were shafting Americans and making record profits & giving companies INCENTIVES to ship jobs overseas. The problem with your statement is that you didn't put "IMO" at the end.
________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics
Mike Szymanski wrote:Whoever runs (I will vote for Hillary), anyone would be better than W
It's nice to see someone is a proponent of logical fallacies these days, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and what not.
/sarcasm.
Way to think deep...
Tech Tone Blog
^^ Sadly, this is how many Americans think and that is why Hillary or Obama will win in '08.
________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics
Knoxfire wrote:Women aren't made for politics. Nagging a husband is one thing. Nagging a country is another.
You've got to be @!#$ting me...
You're entitled to your opinion no matter how ignorant and boldy sexist it may be, but I must say (since no one else did) you sir are a complete and total jackass. [sarcasm]I bet having opinions such as the one you stated above get you laid a lot [/sarcasm] jerkoff.
I don't care what you think about Hilary Clinton in particular but if you think women aren't made for politics and have done no good in politics -- you need to go back to school and pick up a US World History book, canuck.
Shame you can't vote.
