Politics United States Presidential Election Thread

[xi0]

I've been hearing CNN is about to go under, heh. And MSNBC isn't having an easy time of it either.

I don't think Fox News is as conservative as some people make it to sound but I guess I can't convince liberals of that, lol.

Fair enough, opinions are opinions I suppose.

I have a problem with you calling me liberal though. I have liberal social views, but moderate fiscal views.

I dislike the whole labeling someone conservative or liberal really I guess...I do it myself since it's easier and succinct to say someone is one way or the other. In reality, the people who are universally liberal or conservative are in the minority.

Because it's the Mideast dude... we're having to chase the Taliban and Al Qaeda everywhere. Saddam Hussein would have been a threat eventually. So would Iran. Israel knows all too well just how dangerous this whole region. Just covering Afghanistan isn't going to cut it, they're everywhere. I even count America, because we're having to stop them from coming over here as well.

Fact is, we have to cut down on their organization, and it's not so simple as just going into Afghanistan. Granted I don't think we went into Iraq with that mindset but I think it was the right thing to do anyway. The problem now is having to help them rebuild to be a country that can stand for itself, and it's not that simple either.

No, the Taliban is only in Afghanistan. We can say Saddam Hussein might have been a threat, but he certainly wasn't one to us when we invaded. When did America start going to war based solely on assumptions? You know, that sounds eerily reminiscent of Hitler. He assumed Jews were going to run all of Germany, and he assumed the Jews were conspiring to take over the world. That certainly didn't justify what he did. I'm not putting what we're doing in Iraq on the same level as the Holocaust, but it's just a simple analogy.

If we had completely decimated the Taliban, and actually hunted down Osama bin Laden, and all of his henchmen in Afghanistan, along with keeping troop levels at something more consistent than we did, the person and organization responsible for attacking us on 9/11 would have been on trial by now...yet this wasn't done. Can you honestly say that going into Iraq when none of this was done was the right choice?

---

If you haven't noticed, gas prices are rising. The more local oil we withhold from our population, the more tempting it is to buy from people we rather wouldn't want to deal with.

Anyway, you're right though, we do need alternative energy sources, but at the moment we don't have that.

Yes gas prices are rising. But the answer isn't drilling in Alaska or invading other countries.

Look at this chart

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ion.gif/800px-Chart-of-Oil-Trading-Nation.gif

Now is there something off about that chart? Yes...we're clearly addicted to oil.

We don't have alt. fuel sources at the moment? Well BMW and Honda plan on releasing Hydrogen Fuel Cell automobiles this year.

 

[miyi]

I don't think the Iraq War was sound policy, we messed up from the very beginning. However, the removal of Saddam and what we are doing now to stabilize that country is good in the long run, because we are eliminating the possibility of Iraq being another safe haven to Al Qaida. Heck, even former insurgents who were earlier attacking our troops are now turning against Al Qaida, since nobody wants Iraq to be run by Al Qaida, which I think is a good thing.

True, our initial motives for going into Iraq was to seek and destroy WMDs, which turned out not to be the case (although I would argue that Iraq did in fact have WMDs in small amounts, but I'd rather not get into that). But our reasons for staying there, even though our reasons changed, is still justified. We cannot simply abandon and let happen the deep-seated tribal conflicts going on in that region and not do anything about it. Innocent Iraqi people are dying, and adopting an "isolationist" stance on this issue, is mind-boggling to me.


Our intervention was needed in order to restore peace in that region, whether or not it is in our national security interest or not. It was a humanitarian effort, and I think that counts for something.

Unfortunately, the war proved too costly and badly mismanaged, which I think is the fault of the administration, as well as the Congress' persistent efforts to impede Bush's efforts. But that is to be expected, and besides, having a check on powers is much more preferable than an executive blank-check, imo.


Also, Bush grossly underestimated the seriousness of Sunni-Shia rivalry, and his inability to communicate well with his top advisors, or lack thereof, definitely worsened things. And of course, there are various other mismanagement issues and the list is many.

..

Going after Bin Laden when he is being safely protected by the Taliban isn't as easy as it seems. And the fact that Musharaff's refusal to allow US to become directly involved in it's hunt for Al Qaida and Taliban in Pakistan's soil doesn't really make the task any simpler. We rely on Musharaff to deal with Bin Laden, and hope that Musharaff will remain our ally, than not at all. And there's little that can be done about this, and all we can do is apply more pressure for Musharaff to do more. Even had we hunted down Bin Laden ourselves, we would risk our fragile alliance with Nuclear-state Pakistan.

I don't think we can simply defeat terrorism in the way we are currently tactically handling the situation. Al Qaida is a highly mobile network with no definitive headquarters. What I think must be done is apply economic pressure that will hurt their funding resources, and from what I've been reading, they receive it at multiple ends, i.e. drug trade, donations, etc.

But this will not suffice. What will be most influential, and this might take years, decades, maybe longer, is for the U.S. to make the world a better place, such as eradicating poverty, bridging the ideological differences between the West Religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), improving the overall welfare of life, and all other kinds of humanitarian effort worldwide, but focusing primarily on volatile terrorist hot spots.

Terrorist ideology hinges on the fact that people live in bad condition, which gives potential recruits incentive to join their organization. By providing humanitarian aid in terrorist hot spots will make terrorism less likely to flourish. What we are doing now in Iraq is an important small step, but it will require more than the stabilization of Iraq to secure peace and defeat terrorism. What Bush has done is on the right track, but he's failing miserably, and we should do more.

...

I kinda agree that the media is somewhat liberal, although overall I think it's fairly balanced out with conservative elements as well.

...

I'm somewhat skeptical about using nuclear energy, although I admit I know little about the issue. I know that it will be dramatically cheaper and more energy effective, but I wonder (and the reason I ask is because I lack knowledge in this area), how will we account for the radiation that will inevitably become by-products of nuclear energy? Are there methods being introduced to solve this issue?

And how can we prevent nuclear energy plants from turning into nuclear-weapons-producing plants, other than the already implemented IAEA inspections measures? I'm sure once we start nuclear energy, then all other countries will follow suit...is that something we can effectively regulate on a global scale?

 

[xi0]

Well, I wasn't talking about Nuclear energy per say, just alternative energy sources in general. Meaning anything other than fossil fuels. The huge first step in the US is to introduce more Hydrogen Fuel Cell Automobiles to the market, since we're in a love affair with our cars.

Restructuring power plants etc., is probably something for further down the road...but switching over automobiles would make a huge impact on our oil needs.

 

[miyi]

Oh I see what you mean. Yeah, if it was up to me, I wish we can do away with foreign oil dependency, but the sad truth is that, oil is where the money is.

Hopefully in the near future, alternative and reusable energy sources will be able to compete fairly against oil in a free market system. I guess that's what it all boils down to: economics.

From what I've read, nuclear energy surpass all other options in terms of cost benefit, however, the only problems are those I've listed above.

I read that solar energy wastes too much space, and hardly energy efficient. Wind energy is also kinda useless.

I'm only vaguely familiar with Hydrogen fuel cell, I guess I'll read more about it. I heard good things about it though. However, oil is still cheaper, is it not?

 

[yoniekai]

liberating the iraqis is one thing, the other is maintaining a stronghold on the middle east using iraq, because the middle east is fucked up. iran was the key, secure iran's activities from there.

 

[mrcongojack]

I've been hearing CNN is about to go under, heh. And MSNBC isn't having an easy time of it either.

I don't think Fox News is as conservative as some people make it to sound but I guess I can't convince liberals of that, lol.
<hr noshade size="1">

For the better part of a month, Fox News only referred to Barack Obama as Barack "Hussein" Obama along with bringing up claims he is Muslim (he isn't, he's Protestant). Fox News has Bill O'Reilly's show, where O'Reilly continually makes audacious claims about liberalism and "idealogues" without backing up any of his statements with evidence. Fox News is pretty conservative.

Because it's the Mideast dude... we're having to chase the Taliban and Al Qaeda everywhere. Saddam Hussein would have been a threat eventually. So would Iran. Israel knows all too well just how dangerous this whole region actually is... now imagine if WE were their neighbors. Just covering Afghanistan isn't going to cut it, they're everywhere. I even count America, because we're having to stop them from coming over here as well.

Al Quada was never in Iraq before we brought down Saddam's regime. And yeah, Al Quada is all over the place, but they are in places like the Philippines and Pakistan, not Iran. And just because someone will be a threat eventually is not a good reason to invade their country. That would mean we would have to invade North Korea, Iran, Pakistan,
and China. We don't have the military strength to invade every dictator in the world or the sway with other countries to help us out anymore.

Now if one of these countries were to try to take over another country or something, then the rest of the world would back us in removing them from power.

Fact is, we have to cut down on their organization, and it's not so simple as just going into Afghanistan. And we weren't just concentrating on ONE terrorist group. Saddam Hussein himself was a terrorist, even though he was the leader of his own country, he was a terrorist to his own population.

Granted I don't think we went into Iraq with that mindset but I think it was the right thing to do anyway. The problem now is having to help them rebuild to be a country that can stand for itself, and it's not that simple either.
<hr noshade size="1">

Yes, Saddam was a terrorist. You know who else were terrorists? Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty. They went around tarring and feathering British people in hopes to scare them. Saddam wasn't a terrorist, he was a genocidal maniac. We don't go after all of the genocidal countries out there (like the Sudan). Terrorism is just a military tactic that's been used for hundreds (if not thousands of years); this war isn't a war on "terrorism", it's a war on extremist Islamo-fascists. Terrorists are everywhere (Latin America, Spain, etc...) Yet we aren't invading these areas. We can't take out terrorist groups by invading countries, we need cooperation from countries plagued by these groups and to not have our troops bogged down in an unwinnable and pointless "war".
Two thirds of Iraqis don't think the occupation is doing any good, and "53% of Iraqis think the country will be less safe without us their, 57% think we should leave anyway." They don't want us their, why should are troops get killed for people who would rather see us leave? It's like the old saying : You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

If you haven't noticed, gas prices are rising. The more local oil we withhold from our population, the more tempting it is to buy from people we rather wouldn't want to deal with.

Anyway, you're right though, we do need alternative energy sources, but at the moment we don't have that.

Actually, it is possible to convert old cars to run on a battery, which is a really interesting way to get oneself off oil dependency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_conversion . I've been looking into it for awhile now, and am considering buying an old junker over spring break and converting it.

i think im losing interest in obama. and the democrats in general. right now global issues are very crucial, terrorism, space wars, etc i dont think the democrats can handle it. if this keeps up the US needs mccain to maintain US stronghold. i dont know, earlier obama appeals, but now the democrats dont address the global issues as seriously as mccain. "end the war" "pull out the troops" is not as easy and will be easy as it sounds

I wouldn't trust McCain. He's a leftover from the "Teflon President" aka Ronnie Reagan. Reagan's administration gave weapons to Al Quada during the Soviet Afghani Invasion and helped put them into power, along with aiding installing the Iranian presidency, which hasn't been so good for us. A Reaganite will only serve to make us more enemies, which is something we don't need right now.

And dems aren't pushovers. In fact, Democrat Presidents have gotten us into plenty of wars (WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War). Also, Democrats are better with budgets and the economy. The only president to not increase the National Debt and to balance the budget in the last 3 decades was Bill Clinton.

 

[Athena]

liberating the iraqis is one thing, the other is maintaining a stronghold on the middle east using iraq, because the middle east is fucked up. iran was the key, secure iran's activities from there.

Secure Iranian activities? What the hell?

Now that it got to this point and with all the crap Bush administration is putting forward in regard to Iran and unfortunately it seems a lot of people are buying it, it's time for a little education.

First Iran has, had and always will have legitimate interest in Iraq. Iraq was a neighbor who invaded them without a pretext with full backing of United States and continued the bloody war for 8 years. During those 8 years despite Saddam's using of Chemical weapons no UN resolution was passed against him. It was, as Rumsfeld secretary said "Our support was California avocado free style". Saddam was your friend, your ally; he didn't become evil until he invaded Kuwait.

Second when Bush Sr. ignored Shia uprising and cowardly (sorry for the use of this word but it sums up his actions the best) which eventually led to their massacre, Iran was THE only country in the region who gave them a safe place and operation ground to continue their opposition to Saddam's regime. Iraqi opposition and Iranians have good relation no matter what garbage you hear in Fox News.

Have you heard of MEK? A terrorist organization in Iraq directly under control of United States. This paragraph is especially for Gold knight who, despite all the respect I have for him, doesn't seem to want to grasp the reality. Your government is actively supporting a terrorist organization in Iraq. If you are too sensitive about fighting Terrorist in Iraq so they can't come and kill you in your home, why the double standard then? Are terrorists good when they kill Iranians and evil when they kill your people? Are Iranians less human than Americans? When your warship shot down Iranian passenger plane, where their lives so worthless that this act didn't even get a full coverage in Western media?

Bush administration’s policy toward Iran has been a mess. They ask for negotiation but they put preconditions on the issue that they want to negotiate! What the hell kind of joke is that? Iran's right side is Afghanistan, a US military base, in the left is Iraq: another larger military base. What message do you thin that send to Iranians? Remember, Saddam agreed to all US conditions when he got attacked. What guarantee do Iranians have that the same doesn't happen to them? Has US ever considered offering Iran negotiations and offer of non-hostility relation in return for their cooperation? How come the blue eyes people can come thousand of miles away to attack a country that has nothing to do with their so called War on Terror but its neighbor doesn't have legitimate right to over see the process of power transformation in that country.

You see my friend it’s a two way highway. In the last 50 years (when the Iranian democratically elected government was overthrown by a US backed coup d'état) United States has NEVER done anything good to that country. If there is a country that needs to be checked, it’s United States with their arrogant and selfish policies that sees others as mere savages.

By the way, liberating Iraqis my ass. It is called occupation. You invade a country militarily, overthrow its government and install your puppet government. That is called "acting like an imperial power in the post imperial world". That is called making a colony.
Liberation. HA!

 

[miyi]

Bush administration’s policy toward Iran has been a mess. They ask for negotiation but they put preconditions on the issue that they want to negotiate! What the hell kind of joke is that? Iran's right side is Afghanistan, a US military base, in the left is Iraq: another larger military base. What message do you thin that send to Iranians? Remember, Saddam agreed to all US conditions when he got attacked. What guarantee do Iranians have that the same doesn't happen to them? Has US ever considered offering Iran negotiations and offer of non-hostility relation in return for their cooperation? How come the blue eyes people can come thousand of miles away to attack a country that has nothing to do with their so called War on Terror but its neighbor doesn't have legitimate right to over see the process of power transformation in that country.

You see my friend it’s a two way highway. In the last 50 years (when the Iranian democratically elected government was overthrown by a US backed coup d'état) United States has NEVER done anything good to that country. If there is a country that needs to be checked, it’s United States with their arrogant and selfish policies that sees others as mere savages.

By the way, liberating Iraqis my ass. It is called occupation. You invade a country militarily, overthrow its government and install your puppet government. That is called "acting like an imperial power in the post imperial world". That is called making a colony.
Liberation. HA!

Athena, you raise good points, although I disagree with you in some aspects.

All we want from Iran is to stop enriching uranium for weapons related use, and to allow UN inspectors (IAEA) to fully inspect their facilities with full transparency, and as you know, Iran has evaded inspections for years. We cannot simply accept their verbal assurances as valid, we want hard proof.

That, I think is a legitimate request not only on the part of the USA, but also as a legitimate concern of the world community.

Only until we are certain that Iran is not developing nukes will the US engage in peaceful diplomatic ties with Iran.

What is mind boggling to me is that if Iran has nothing to hide, then why do they persistently refuse to cooperate?

And personally I have a problem with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's wish to "wipe the state of Israel off the map". This in itself should be good reason why US should mistrust Iran.

I will admit, however, that the US did play a selfish role during the Iran-Iraq war, and it can be argued that we did it to secure our oil interests.

And there were various factors that can be attributed to as the cause of the Iran-Iraq war, and I guess you can say it was a battle between Saddam and Ayatollah Khomeini, border disputes, fears of Shia insurgency on the part of Iraq, and the list is many. And consequently, Iran places an enormous influence on Iraq especially now that Saddam is not in power, due to Iraq's Shia majority population. But it's obvious to me that Iran's recent increased activity in Iraq now is fueled with ambitions of control and power in that region, more than anything else.

In stark contrast, what we want in Iraq is not to control that region. No, you can argue that we "invaded" that country, or "occupied" it, but the truth is, we have lost tremendous amounts of money, not to mention lives, in Iraq. The US actually lost more than they benefited in Iraq, and on top of that, we are going to leave that country in the hand of Iraqi people when their democracy is in stable condition. This, by definition, is not "invasion".

....


on topic:

can anyone educate me on what each candidate's health care policy is like? (excluding Huckabee, since we all know he has a slim chance of winning..)

 

[Athena]

Athena, you raise good points, although I disagree with you in some aspects.

All we want from Iran is to stop enriching uranium for weapons related use, and to allow UN inspectors (IAEA) to fully inspect their facilities with full transparency, and as you know, Iran has evaded inspections for years. We cannot simply accept their verbal assurances as valid, we want hard proof.

That, I think is a legitimate request not only on the part of the USA, but also as a legitimate concern of the world community.

Only until we are certain that Iran is not developing nukes will the US engage in peaceful diplomatic ties with Iran.

What is mind boggling to me is that if Iran has nothing to hide, then why do they persistently refuse to cooperate?

This argument will go way beyond the presidential discussion which is the purpose of this thread but I’ll go ahead anyways. It’s related to the president’s foreign policy so It’s not so off topic.

When I read some of your arguments, my jaw dropped; nobody warned me so I wasn’t prepared. I’ll only write an answer to some of your comments simply because it takes too much time to reply to your every single claim! First about Iran’s plans to enrich Uranium, unlike what you make it look here, the problem is not “just let the inspector in, abandon your project and it’ll be all good”. This whole ordeal started to come to light during the early months of 1998, right after Iran test fired its first ballistic missile. Israel was worried (rightly so if their feared about their existence) and that transformed into a very aggressive policy from Clinton administration and EU to persuade Iran to abandon its missile program.

Few months later an anonymous Official (which strangely enough happen time over time when United States wants to step up pressure against Iran and amazingly enough without any proof to back it up) claimed that Iran is only 3 years behind making its first Nuclear bomb. That shocked the world. The next 3 years negotiation after negotiation with EU let to a breakthrough in 2001 which resulted in Iran becoming the signatory member of NPT.

Now before I continue, here is your first and biggest mistake: UN official have unrestricted access to ANY site in Iran. I’ve said this before I have no idea where you find your information but mine is IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/ ) you know it’s so very easy to claim something and NOT back it up. For instance did you know Iran is THE only country in Middle East (and Asia for that matter-considering the nuclear powers) that has signed NPT? I really hope you know what NPT is.

Now back to year 2001. Right when Iran agreed to cooperate with IAEA it was called the part of access of evil by the Bush administration. It was when States was acting high and mighty rejecting Iran’s request for an unconditional negotiation, something US BEGGED in 2006, you see the irony? Iran’s help in Afghanistan turned to “nothing but some minor helps here and there”( Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry) wow, how did that happen? Weren’t you guys the ONLY supper power that financed Taliban while Iran was backing the Afghan government in late 1990s? Where were you when Al Quida attacked Kabul and defeated Ahmad Shah Massud? The same issue with MEK, terrorists are your allies unless they harm you directly. If they kill your enemies-including Iranians-, then they are freedom fighters.
There is absolutely no guarantee that any help from Iran will be appreciated. Hell, even mentioned. What guarantee does Iran have that US won’t demand more if they abandon their nuclear program? Why other countries with unstable government like Pakistan and Israel with its atrocious human right record are allowed to keep their Nukes and not even sign NPT but Iran is not allowed to enrich uranium? A right that is guaranteed under article 4 of NPT.

Come on, you better come with a better reply than “they need to gain our trust”. For over a year Iran stopped enriching but EU did not fulfill its promises. Even Javier Solano talked about “past mistakes”. How on earth can you justify that? Why do you think Iranian voted for Ahmadi Nejad? You talk about wrong policies of your government yet you never mention what they are or how you made them. How do you want to start a negotiation when the very issue at the heart of the negotiation is your pre condition? I recommend you see (if you don’t have time to read) some of the interviews with US foreign policy diplomats and see what they think of this issue. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a good start. But above all do you know what the most amazing element in your post is? The fact that the media in your country brilliantly and astonishingly has made Iran looks like Germany in 1939. You sure have some pretty screwed up data in your media. Finally Bush has asked Iran to trust Russia and accept their uranium plans while not even Russian neighbors trust that country. Just see what happened with EU this winter when Russia stopped exporting Gas. Do you REALLY trust Russians on anything? Do you?

If you skipped the entire post, here is the summery for you: the moment Iran stops its enriching program US will bomb the shit out of them (“all options are on the table”, sound familiar, doesn’t it?) People in States including YOU will sit behind their TVs watching Iranians cities turning to dust while eating your MC Donalds. The most you would do, would be to go online signing a petition and asking your government to be more considerate when shooting the shit out of civilians.

Before I go, for heaven’s sake do NOT include "world community" the same as USA. The "world community" was negotiating with Iran, and they did so successfully, while US was busy bombing Iraqis and calling Iran "Evil" and "dangerous nation". Last I checked Iran did not start war with 7 different countries in less than a decade.

 

[miyi]

You're assuming I read ultra conservative news media sources, but I don't. I try to read both the left and right, I even read the Iran media, and they're not particularly fond of the USA.

You bring up a lot of good points, and you're probably more knowledgeable about this topic than I am. But I still defend the US foreign policy, and I'll stick to it, and that is my opinion. I don't think the US is acting excessively arrogant at all, as you claim.

But I respect your opinion, and I agree with you that the US have supported dictators in the past and current (example: Pervez Musharaff). Just because I support the current "war on terror", in particular with the democratization of Iraq, doesn't mean I support every US foreign policy concerning the Middle East. There are a lot of things I wish to be different, while there are other things that I tend to support.

I hope that US and Iran do have a positive future together, and Bush's choice of words that Iran is an "axis of evil" is a little harsh in my opinion, which can potentially send the wrong message to the Iranian people. I dislike their current president, but not the entire Iranian people.

and before you break into another tirade, I recommend you address your grievances either to President Bush himself, or the remaining Presidential Candidates in this incoming election. They're the ones whose policies will matter, not mines.

 

[Athena]

I hope that US and Iran do have a positive future together, and Bush's choice of words that Iran is an "axis of evil" is a little harsh in my opinion, which can potentially send the wrong message to the Iranian people. I dislike their current president, but not the entire Iranian people.

and before you break into another tirade, I recommend you address your grievances either to President Bush himself, or the remaining Presidential Candidates in this incoming election. They're the ones whose policies will matter, not mines.

:P
I get pretty excited when I talk about politics (one of my majors!) I wrote many papers on this issue, especially the EU-Iran relation so that where I know most of what I wrote. Strange as it sounds, my Political Science professor didn't even know the head of the government and head of the country (the one that have control over the armed forces) are not the same person. Iran is one of the few countries that have a president that does not hold absolute power despite the vote of people which is not a bad thing considering the maniac in power right now!

The thing is I'm here in Canada, I cannot vote in your election neither I have any chance to ask the candidates about their policies. You can go as far to say I have no right to even say anything about United States since I don't live there but your election concerns us all. Your policy is what's shaping the world and a bad one, like Iraq war, has negative effects on all the countries especially neighboring countries. Accusing US of every misery in the world is the easy way out; that does not explain the stupidity of Iranian people who chose Ahmadinejad. Looking at things the way US administration wants is not the right way either.

The whole world is watching you, we have faith in you. Please, please chose your next president wisely; someone who offers a message of peace and friendship not war and animosity.

 

[mrcongojack]

Campaign Update:

Obama spanks Hillary in the Wisconsin primary : 58% to 41% (reported by CNN @ 10:48 PM). McCain won the Republican primary. Democrats are turning out to primaries 2:1 compared to their Republican counterpart.


Oh, and by the way...

I got to vote for the first time!!!! I was at the polls at 7 AM (wasn't first though....that ticked me off). Now I can legitimately bitch about politicians.

 

[xi0]

Campaign Update:

Obama spanks Hillary in the Wisconsin primary : 58% to 41% (reported by CNN @ 10:48 PM). McCain one the Republican primary. Democrats are turning out to primaries 2:1 compared to their Republican counterpart.


Oh, and by the way...

I got to vote for the first time!!!! I was at the polls at 7 AM (wasn't first though....that ticked me off). Now I can legitimately bitch about politicians.

Looks like I was correct about Obama being a lock...

Oh by the way, congratz on voting for the first time.

 

[lordHokage]

The reality is that the next president of the United States of America would have to deal with Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and many other trade agreements.

 

[Gold Knight]

Sorry for not responding to the posts here. I'm a bit miffed about the way things are going, everybody already knows why I feel this way, so I'm not going to bother re-stating myself over and over again.

Looks like I was correct about Obama being a lock...

Yeah, that's good I suppose, I certainly wouldn't want Hillary to make a mockery of the whole thing.

I dunno, though. The other day Obama's wife said "this is the first time I have ever been proud of my country." Because her husband's in the running? WTF? No pride in the country that's given us so much freedom? That didn't make her sound like anybody I'd want as our first lady.

Bleh, I'm just hoping all this doesn't blow up in our faces in the long run.

 

[xi0]

Yeah, that's good I suppose, I certainly wouldn't want Hillary to make a mockery of the whole thing.

I meant it more towards mrcongojack, since he insisted earlier that Hillary would have a chance in Wisconsin.

I dunno, though. The other day Obama's wife said "this is the first time I have ever been proud of my country." Because her husband's in the running? WTF? No pride in the country that's given us so much freedom? That didn't make her sound like anybody I'd want as our first lady.

Bleh, I'm just hoping all this doesn't blow up in our faces in the long run.

Yeah, she sounded disgruntled there. The Obama campaign certainly needs to reign her in a bit, LOL. But if she meant it more as pride in the fact that a Black man was the front-runner for President, I guess that makes sense in a way. At least she's honest I guess.

 

[yoniekai]

yeah obama is on fire! go man, tho mccain still feels like the winner in the end but who knows

i saw obama's 2004 democratic convention speech and this guy is just smart, honest and real

 

[miyi]

i saw obama's 2004 democratic convention speech and this guy is just smart, honest and real

oh yeah, I was watching that, I think he was endorsing, or maybe even campaigning with John Kerry, right? yeah, I think it was my roommate who brought it to my attention how good of a speaker he was...and then after listening through his entire speech, I agreed.

But I think he's emphasizing too much on delivery skills and oratory, rather than substance.

And about Miss Obama's comment...hopefully she didn't mean it, and that it was just a poor choice of phrasing...but if it was intentional, then this country is in trouble....how unpatriotic of her to openly say that.

 

[xi0]

And about Miss Obama's comment...hopefully she didn't mean it, and that it was just a poor choice of phrasing...but if it was intentional, then this country is in trouble....how unpatriotic of her to openly say that.

This country is in trouble?

I'll admit that it was a stupid thing to say, but since when does the First Lady (if she's elected) call the shots?

I think, much like the Hillary crying thing, this is a non-story, which is being blown up by the media.

Maybe she's ashamed of how the country is being ran right now? Can anyone honestly say they aren't ashamed by it in some way?

 

[mrcongojack]

oh yeah, I was watching that, I think he was endorsing, or maybe even campaigning with John Kerry, right? yeah, I think it was my roommate who brought it to my attention how good of a speaker he was...and then after listening through his entire speech, I agreed.

But I think he's emphasizing too much on delivery skills and oratory, rather than substance.

And about Miss Obama's comment...hopefully she didn't mean it, and that it was just a poor choice of phrasing...but if it was intentional, then this country is in trouble....how unpatriotic of her to openly say that.

I think he uses enough details in his debates, unlike Hillary, who uses way too many. Let's be honest: in 10 months all of the plans the candidates have right now will be worthless. Things are going to change. Besides, Congress has more of a say in what legislation gets passed (it's kind of their job ). That whole debate she started was kind of ridiculous: she's perfectly aware that the plans a candidates has during the election will change, not all of Bill's plans worked out. And Obama's and Hillary's plans are like 95% the same and do pretty much the same thing, except they emphasize a few different points (Hillary emphasizes health care and Obama emphasizes education). Their respective outlines for what they want to do in office are almost identical.

In regards to Michelle Obama's comments, she said
"People in this country are ready for change, and hungry for a different kind of politics and let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
While a bit poorly worded, she was referring to politics. This was then spun by the ever-truthful Bill O'Reilly, who said:
"And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."
Hey, Bill, great idea! Talk about lynching a black woman! Talk about bad wording...

I think the Obama campaign is just having trouble getting used to "front runner" status. For the better part of a year their every word wasn't under scrutiny, but I think they're getting a handle on it.

Anywho, about the whole "John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist", I hope it isn't true. I'm not a Republican, but McCain seems like a good guy and he doesn't seem like the type to do that. The story looks to have some kind of merit, seeing as it was released by the New York Times and not the National Enquirer, but they've gotten stories wrong before.