Politics
#1
Posted 14 January 2008 - 05:49 PM
Really, it is the Democratic side of the race that is more intriguing. The resurgence of Barack Obama among younger voters has put him back in the running with Hillary Clinton, with John Edwards in a close third.
On the Republican side, there are interesting stories, including the Mormon Mitt Romney, John McCain, and the new name Mike Huckabee.
So, what are your thoughts as the primaries continue towards February 5th, which is the day when it is expected we will know who the two candidates are?
#2
Posted 14 January 2008 - 05:53 PM
#3
Posted 14 January 2008 - 05:59 PM
Anyway, Barrack Obama is intriguing, but he is kinda young and lacking of experience.
Hillary Clinton is a good strong candidate who has experience but is a tad flip-floppy.
John Edwards doesn't really have a chance.
Huckabee is a really likable guy. He seems like a trustworthy guy who could steer us in a good direction. however, people are afraid he'll use his religious views during his presidency.
McCain has experience and is more independent than Republican.
Skidz, you can't say that Obama will get all the black vote, and that Hillary will get female vote. I know females that hate Hillary and African Americans who hate Obama.
#4
Posted 14 January 2008 - 06:01 PM
I think, however, that the young vote will lean towards Barack Obama, because of his preaching of change. And while he is an amazing speaker, I haven't seen him take a stand on many issues. It is the primaries, but if he's going to be voted in, he has to take a stand on something before February 5th.
#5
Posted 14 January 2008 - 06:05 PM
#6
Posted 14 January 2008 - 06:14 PM
Wow, he's so terrible... Didn't you see his new ad, such an insult to Islam.
Um, anyway I really hope Mitt Romney wins (I really love Ron Paul though but he wouldn't win). I think he has the best answers. And um, that Huckleberry guy... I dislike him... He thinks people with AIDs should be isolated... That's enough reason for me to dislike him ^_~
Anyway man, I'm gonna reply better to this topic later cuz I gtg soon, but omg, I really dislike the US elections. It's so darn long and everything is about hating; spread love not hate people. The French election was much more interesting and policy focused.
#7
Posted 14 January 2008 - 06:33 PM
Grah, I'm not sexist or anything, but Hilary can't win. Not that she doesn't have the ability, but she shouldn't. Hilary says alot of things that arent her. Her entire campaign is run on image, I can trust somebody that will change their veiws because it's beneficial for there campaign
#8
Posted 14 January 2008 - 06:49 PM
As for the two that will get in, I don't know who will on the Republican side (hopefully it's not New York's Govenor (sp?), because he has NO idea what he's doing, but he could still possibly get in with the craploads of cash at his disposal). On the Democratic side, I doubt Edwards will get in. Hilary is the most famous of the three, and will most likely get many of Bill's origional supporters, and Obama is pretty popular. Edwards is just kinda trailing right behind 'em.
#9
Posted 14 January 2008 - 10:12 PM
Even though I like Obama, I don't see him winning because people are ignorant and say "he lacks experience".
#10
Posted 14 January 2008 - 10:58 PM
#11
Posted 14 January 2008 - 11:04 PM
Where exactly will the US government get the money to fun its war then?
Oh and yeah, I want Mitt Romney or Barack Obama to win.
#12
Posted 14 January 2008 - 11:15 PM
#13
Posted 14 January 2008 - 11:20 PM
#14
Posted 15 January 2008 - 12:17 AM
.eugine, on Jan 14 2008, 09:04 PM, said:
Where exactly will the US government get the money to fun its war then?
No, I'm not Pro-War. I'm Pro-Getting the war over with (not stopping it in it's tracks). So terrorism can be gone for a good long time, we don't waste the time and money already spent on it, and we don't have another Vietnam on our hands. Plus, the US actually has a failry large sum of money sitting in an off-shore account, waiting to be used. I think finishing the war in Iraq would be a pretty good use for it.
And lower taxes are always better. MUCH easier on the economy and small buisnesses. Plus, a flat tax is a lot easier on the people in general. Lower stress could mean reduction in fat people and suicides. :)
#15
Posted 15 January 2008 - 07:52 PM
.eugine, on Jan 15 2008, 11:14 AM, said:
Wow, he's so terrible... Didn't you see his new ad, such an insult to Islam.
Isn't he the Mayor of New York?
Seeing as I'm not an American let me clear some things up.
Bush has run his 2 terms in office, so he cannot be re-elected ever?
Only one person from each party, Republican and Democrat, can be 'appointed' to run for President?
!~2200~!
#16
Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:08 PM
If the war right now turns into another Vietnam, pulling back and all, peopel will be REALLLLY pissed.
#17
Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:13 PM
@Watch: Sounds about right. But really, any party can nominate a candidate, but only two are chosen for the final vote. The Republican party and the Democrat party are just the biggest two. Independant is the third, and most familiar 'secondary' party.
#18
Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:16 PM
#19
Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:21 PM
I'm sure I messed up somewhere, but that's pretty much what happens.
#21
Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:38 PM
#22
Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:46 PM
And as I recall, it's possible to serve a third term, but I can't remember how.
#23
Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:52 PM
Dude of Wind, on Jan 15 2008, 09:46 PM, said:
And as I recall, it's possible to serve a third term, but I can't remember how.
Didin't one president serve 2 terms, leave, then come back like 8 years later and serve another one term.
#24
Posted 15 January 2008 - 09:10 PM
Dude of Wind, on Jan 15 2008, 06:46 PM, said:
And as I recall, it's possible to serve a third term, but I can't remember how.
I think congress has to make a unnanomious(sp) vote on it. Only one president served 3 terms before, and that was during WWII. The only reason it was even considered was because congress was worried that the US would flater if the current president was removed. I can't remember wich president it was though.
#26
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:36 PM
Ah, good times.
#27
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:52 PM
Anyway man, I think this would probably be the most important election the US will have in its history. While watching business news today Citigroup posted record losses, and everyone is talking about a US recession. The Euros and Canadian dollar (ours is pegged :P, I'm sure it would have been higher too x3) are stronger than the US dollar.
The US government is spending more than it has (contrary to what Toasty says, I believe the US is about 10 trillion dollars in debt from what I've read) and I think the 'war' is one of the reasons.
Honestly, I'm rooting for the US but if someone wants to elect a President to "crackdown on imigration, continue the war, and get funding back to the police." I think the US will be well poised to be the shortest super power in History... 1950 - 2020?
#28
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:58 PM
Dude of Wind, on Jan 14 2008, 08:58 PM, said:
While I do like the idea of no sales tax. I remember the times I've been in the UK and it was nice to buy things when the price I saw was how much money I'd actually have to take out!
But Huckabee is a religious zealot and a right-wing nutjob, and that won't do. No sir. Look it up on Google, don't expect a big political debate from me.
#29
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:21 PM
.eugine, on Jan 15 2008, 08:52 PM, said:
Anyway man, I think this would probably be the most important election the US will have in its history. While watching business news today Citigroup posted record losses, and everyone is talking about a US recession. The Euros and Canadian dollar (ours is pegged :P, I'm sure it would have been higher too x3) are stronger than the US dollar.
The US government is spending more than it has (contrary to what Toasty says, I believe the US is about 10 trillion dollars in debt from what I've read) and I think the 'war' is one of the reasons.
Honestly, I'm rooting for the US but if someone wants to elect a President to "crackdown on imigration, continue the war, and get funding back to the police." I think the US will be well poised to be the shortest super power in History... 1950 - 2020?
All we have to do is take out illigal imigration. Boom. Suddenly, the economy begins to recover. A better economy could buy the US time to finish the war. Then we could turn back to our own internal affairs.
#30
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:39 PM
Elaborate?
And um, lots of American business don't really care about Americans, but only profit, they welcome illegal immigration x.x
I see them outsourcing their jobs to China even more if illegal immigration is 'fixed'...
#31
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:48 PM
.eugine, on Jan 15 2008, 08:52 PM, said:
Anyway man, I think this would probably be the most important election the US will have in its history. While watching business news today Citigroup posted record losses, and everyone is talking about a US recession. The Euros and Canadian dollar (ours is pegged :P , I'm sure it would have been higher too x3) are stronger than the US dollar.
The US government is spending more than it has (contrary to what Toasty says, I believe the US is about 10 trillion dollars in debt from what I've read) and I think the 'war' is one of the reasons.
Honestly, I'm rooting for the US but if someone wants to elect a President to "crackdown on imigration, continue the war, and get funding back to the police." I think the US will be well poised to be the shortest super power in History... 1950 - 2020?
I know the US is in debt. Even the money in the off-shore account can't help ALL of it. But I never said the US WASN'T in debt, I just said they had money they weren't using.
And the reason for the recession is that there's a crapload of illegal citizcens sucking the money out of us, and our LEGAL citiczens are spending money they don't have. They need to frikkin' get off their asses and actually WORK for once. And the illegals need to gtfo.
#32
Posted 16 January 2008 - 08:01 PM
.eugine, on Jan 15 2008, 09:39 PM, said:
Elaborate?
And um, lots of American business don't really care about Americans, but only profit, they welcome illegal immigration x.x
I see them outsourcing their jobs to China even more if illegal immigration is 'fixed'...
Stopping Illigal Imigration won't instantly fix everything, I know that. But it WILL make things a hell of alot easier if they stopped taking our money and jobs.
#34
Posted 16 January 2008 - 08:31 PM
#35
Posted 16 January 2008 - 08:33 PM
The ID has worked before, never treid the citizenship though.
#39
Posted 17 January 2008 - 12:10 AM
Stopping illegal immigration may not fix the enitre problem (the other half of it is Americans spending money they don't have), but I don't think it's possible for local buisnesses to outsource to China Eugine. :P Same goes for fast food resturaunts. Those two do a lot of the employing of illegals. Besides, getting rid of 'em will free up jobs that so many Americans need (well, so that they can actually spend their OWN money). It'll also stop them from sending our money off to Mexico.
#40
Posted 17 January 2008 - 04:10 PM
Wind Dude, on Jan 16 2008, 10:02 PM, said:
Ha like I have a fake citezenship. I have a fake ID, but I rearely use it. 18A movies, and the local LCBO(Liquor Controle Board of Ontario), oh and cigarettes. But nothnig bad. My buddy works at the movie theatre, so the only time I use it is when he isn't working. And the store on my street, I know the guy, kind of, and he sells me and my friends cigarettes, so once again I only use it when he's not working, and for liquor, I drink liek once every 2 monthes, so ya.
I bet I use it once a week, every two weeks.
I am McLovin. ^_^.
#41
Posted 17 January 2008 - 06:44 PM
#44
Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:07 PM
#46
Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:24 PM
#47
Posted 19 January 2008 - 03:30 AM
I haven't watched the news lately. What's going on right now?
#48
Posted 19 January 2008 - 02:27 PM
#49
Posted 19 January 2008 - 10:58 PM
#50
Posted 19 January 2008 - 11:08 PM
#51
Posted 27 January 2008 - 03:52 PM
#52
Posted 27 January 2008 - 07:51 PM
Personally, I'm getting tired of the same old political rhetoric. I'm siding with Obama/Democrat here purely out of a desire to see something new (though I am very supportive of his economic and education platform too).
#53
Posted 27 January 2008 - 08:02 PM
Obama-Well, I would have to see his dancing skills before I make a descision.
That was awsome. And...
QAG-So we have a black man, a women, and John Edwards.
The coolest thing was that CARTMAN was at the political debate. If you watch [s]The[/] A Daily Show With John Stewart, you'll understand what I mean.
#56
Posted 27 January 2008 - 10:35 PM
edit... wait, are you a registered Republican, GL?
#57
Posted 06 February 2008 - 11:52 AM
Add some propaganda to my post. =D
Super Tuesday is over, and it has solved virtually nothing. If a winner had to be picked on the Dem side, it is Barack Obama who took 14 of the 22 states. However, Clinton still leads the delegate total with 41% to Obama's 36%. On the Republican side, John McCain took a commanding lead and is now well on his way to a presidential nomination.
Thoughts?
#58
Posted 06 February 2008 - 02:42 PM
Not only that but Hilary's been in the White House before, let someone else have a turn.
#59
Posted 06 February 2008 - 03:14 PM
Don't like John McCain x3.
And the process is a bit boring to me Me111. I just read the BBC News articles now.
#61
Posted 06 February 2008 - 05:00 PM
#62
Posted 06 February 2008 - 05:07 PM
I think this would be awesome -
Hilary - President
Obama - Vice president
Bill - Repair image of USA around the world (since the world loves him!) I dunno maybe Secretary of State?
After 8 years, if they don't screw up... Obama run in 2016, and win the Presidency x3, since being Vice President will give him lots of experience!
#63
Posted 06 February 2008 - 05:59 PM
#64
Posted 07 February 2008 - 12:23 AM
Wind Dude, on Feb 6 2008, 03:00 PM, said:
And when she talks, it's just like Bill. She says a whole bunch of stuff that sounds really good, but means absolutely nothing. At least most of the time.....
The only candidates I know a lot about are the ones who I know I wouldn't vote for. Hilary will kill America dead, and Mike Hucabee, though I agree with what he says, isn't exactly the person I thought he was. I
I don't really know a lot about Obama, but from what I do know, I don't like what he would impliment/do as President.
First off, anyone who's intent on setting a withdrawl timetable for Iraq doesn't get my vote. Like I've said many times before, the only way to actually finish this war with a GOOD outcome, is if all the people who're trying to stop it/pull our troops out (mainly liberals), shut up and let them do their jobs. It's been physically proven that the more support the war gets, the fewer of our men die, and the more terrorist cells we infiltrate/destroy. Which is EXACTLY what we need. Both Hilary and Obama want to withdraw the troops, so I wouldn't vote for either of them.
Secondly, I wouldn't vote for anyone who want's to give illegal immigrants citiczenship. That's one of THE worst things for our economy.
What I'd REALLY like to see, though, is a candidate who's not going to play dirty to get more votes (like Gregoire, Washington's governor did), or try to keep another candidate from getting votes (like one of the Republican candidates did just recently).
And one more thing. Any candidate who proposes ideas that give the government more control, is only interested in themselves, because those ideas would give them more power. Hilary wants to have a healthcare system where it would be illegal for you to choose your own doctor. The government would choose it for you. THAT is BAD.
#65
Posted 07 February 2008 - 12:32 AM
And Clinton brought race into the...race. That's bad.
#66
Posted 09 February 2008 - 07:22 PM
I'm against the Iraq war, and was from the start, but in this age it isn't about whether the war is right or wrong, but whether not the USA can continue to put your children, children, children in debt, Toasty. If the US government continues with its war mentality, China and other rising world powers will quicky pass in every category in less than 50 years.
And, I think government run health care is the best for every country. Most Caribbean countries and I think Canada and UK have government their run health care system, and its better imo. When you have private market health care, insurance companies are able to deny someone services or increase fees for any technicality or birth defect. I do not think someone should profit over someone health, and that's why I'm for government run health care. And under government run health care, the government doesn't choose your doctors or hospital x.x
#67
Posted 09 February 2008 - 07:32 PM
#68
Posted 09 February 2008 - 07:43 PM
And anyway, Toasty I agree over regulation by the government is a bad thing, but we need government regulators to keep competition alive and honest.
Would you like for Microsoft, or any other company to be able to buy out competition? Or would you like for News corp to run your internet? The free market is great, but the government needs to step in the make sure the people still have a choice.
Remember, development is the enlargement of people's choices.
#69
Posted 09 February 2008 - 09:24 PM
Sea of Time, on Feb 9 2008, 05:32 PM, said:
With the way Hilary wanted to set up Government controlled healthcare, the government WOULD choose your doctors for you. A bigger Government that has more control is not only bad, it's not what the founding fathers intended. They wanted to give the power to the people, NOT the Government.
And healthcare wouldn't be so expensive if it weren't for all the lawsuites(sp?). Sometimes people just can't be healed no matter what the doctor does, yet stupid people will sue anyway.
And Eugine, it's either pull out of Iraq and let any troops left, or even the Iraqi army/police get killed by the insurgents, and then allow the terrorists to rebuild and ultimately attack us YET AGAIN and go through this ALL over again, or actually give our troops some support so we DON'T spend another 20 years at war. If we can WIN this war, and sooner rather than later, we'll not only prevent another 9/11, and keep the terrorist from attacking us or anyone else, but we won't have the war sucking our money away.
If we pull out, we may not have to pay more money (and thus improve the economy), but there's no doubt in my mind that the terrorist will rebuild and attack us again. If they attack us again, we'll just go through this all over again, and lose even more American lives.
The only thing preventing us from winning this war, is the fact the the Liberals continue to try and cut funding for the war, and continue to try and pull our men out.
I'm for ending the war just like the Liberals. Unlike the Liberals, however, I'm for ending the war the RIGHT way.
#70
Posted 09 February 2008 - 09:54 PM
Anyway, both of our views on the war are sealed, and I doubt I can change your opinion (neither will you change mind ^^), but I can atleast tell you why I disagree =)
You can't 'win' the war on terrorism, no matter how hard Bush makes the world believe he can. Terrorism is an idea, not a country. It will move and rebuild wherever it has the chance as long as the incentives remain. Incentives = Christians dictating how the people there should live. Plus, Bush never went there to win terrorism anyway, but to secure oil =). Too bad the investment hasn't paid off yet.
I strongly believe in living by example, and never to spread ideas by force also.
On, and btw
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11...tape/index.html
Please don't fall victim of his plan! ;_;
http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Bin_..._bankrupt_U_S_5
Read the comments there also. It's insightful =)
#71
Posted 10 February 2008 - 01:52 AM
True, can't argue there.
It is true that you can never really win the war on terrorism, because there will ALWAYS be people who are willing to die themselves to kill people for whatever reason. However, we can make 'being a terrorist' much less enticing. And as for winning the war in Iraq, winning would be takeing out as many terrorist cells as it takes to be able to keep them at bay with a minimal military force. The target is to reduce the number of insurgents enough so that the Iraqi military will be enough to take care of any new cells.
And the terrorists aren't trying to kill us because anyone, especially Christians, are trying to dictate how they live. The only thing that the Christians who are in the middle east are doing, is trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. Islamic beliefs, as far as I know (if I get something wrong, don't hate me, just correct me), women are worth less than men. Most of the time, women aren't allowed to do what they want, like get an education.
The main reason why the terrorists are trying to kill us, is because we don't believe the same things that they do. Instead of just preaching like a normal non-extremeist would, though, they choose to kill us because they just don't like us. And just like there's no way for you to change my view on the war, and there's no way I can change your's, there's no way that we can just make them stop hating us. They will not negotiate. since we can't do anythything peacefully to stop them from killing us, we have to use force.
And Eugine, the ONLY way that the United states will go bankrupt, is if the Liberals continue to try to cut funding and bring our troops home. No matter what, if we pull out now, we may save some cash, but we WILL go through the WHOLE thing, from another 9/11 to everyone saying that it's a pointless war 3 years later, again. If we actually give our troops support, we can get rid of the vast majority of the insurgents, and then we'll only need to keep a few hundred troops, if that, in Iraq. Eventually we'll be able to pull out completely, as long as Iraq's military can handle the occaisional group of insurgents now and then.
The point is, if both sides of the isle come together to support the war, instead of playing a game of tug-o-war, we WON'T go bankrupt. We'll take out Osama and keep our money at the same time.
And even though the war is sucking up a lot of tax dollars, the illegal immigrants that continue to cross our border are contributing a crapload to our decreasing economy as well. So it's not just one thing that's hurting our economy, it's a number of things.
#72
Posted 10 February 2008 - 01:59 AM
#73
Posted 10 February 2008 - 02:08 AM
#74
Posted 10 February 2008 - 03:39 AM
It could go either y way. It could lead to a downfalkl, but it could also lead to a great chance for Maerica.
#75
Posted 10 February 2008 - 09:59 AM
http://en.wikipedia....sal_health_care
And, I'm not gonna argue with you about terrorism. We have different logics on why it occurs...
So, I'm not gonna contribute to a never ending argument anymore.
#76
Posted 11 February 2008 - 10:51 PM
But I'd like to point out one more reason why I wouldn't vote for a Liberal. You know the Cold War? When Reagan was President? Well it's happening all over again. Only this time, the roles are reversed. The reason why the Soviet Union collapsed was because we pretty much crushed it's economy. Well, now OUR economy is plumeting, WE'RE fighting the terrorists, and Putin has delcared an "Arms War" (yeah, like there was really an arms race to begin with. :) He just wants to be the superpower in the world). And the government isn't really doing a whole lot to stop it. Infact, they're actually making it worse. We're BORROWING a crapload of money from China, and that only puts us farther in debt. Probably the best way to get ourselves out of this hole, is to tap in to the HUGE crude oil depository that resides in Alaska. If I remember right, it holds as much oil as there is in the entire middle east. That could EASILY pull us out of debt, and keep us from funding our enemies for years to come. Not only that, but we might actually be able to see gas drop down to the one to two dollar range again. And that sounds really good to me.
The only problem? Liberals like Hillary, Obama, and Al Gore are "worried about the effect it will have on the environment." Oh, how noble of you! You're actually standing for something now! Too bad that'll send us into an economical collapse.
Not only are they (and many other environmentalists who are worried about the [extremely small amount] of wildlife in the area, or CO2 emissions it will produce from use) preventing us from using our best weapon against poverty and the falling worth of the USD, but they're (well, the government, but the government is made up of mostly Liberals, and they're the only ones who support it) paying farmers to grow ethanol producing plants (such as corn). That's all fine and dandy until you notice that it actually takes more gasoline to make the ethanol than the amount of ethanol you get from the process, and that BECAUSE farmers are now getting more money to plant corn, they're planting smaller and smaller crops of other plants that we need. Like wheat (which we're soon going to be importing from China, further funding our enemies). But not only will the price of wheat rise more than the 50% that it already has since January this year, it will rasie the cost of pretty much every other food you can think of, since we get most of our food from farms.
On the other hand, though the only decent Republican candidate that was running has dropped out (Mitt Romney), at least Mike Huckabee will consider using all of that oil we have in Alaska to prevent us from going into another Cold War.
And as far as the war goes, some guys on Anderson Cooper 360 suggested that we "reduce the troops in Iraq to a more managable size (of 50k)." What a load of ****. If you're going to cut the number of troops we have in Iraq to that much, why don't you just pull 'em all out or go and kill the 50,000 left yourself? We're stretched pretty thin as it is over there. If we reduce the number of our troops any more, we'll open holes in our defenses and the number of civilian AND military deaths to what they were before the surge of troops. Despite what many Liberals like to say, the surge has REALLY helped. The number of civilian and military deaths have gone down significantly.
#77
Posted 12 February 2008 - 10:42 AM
Toasty, on Feb 12 2008, 12:51 AM, said:
One detail to put into context: before the surge, the Shia cleric in Iraq (his name escapes me right now) told his forces to halt all combat for a period of 6 months, and his was a fairly significant base of militants.
#78
Posted 12 February 2008 - 06:16 PM
His speeches makes me so sentimental. I love this guy =)
#79
Posted 12 February 2008 - 08:35 PM
Rather unlike the plastic, artificial rhetoric of Clinton.
Speaking of the election, Obama has officially pulled ahead in both delegates and super delegates as of today's victories in Virginia, Maryland, and soon the District of Columbia.
#80
Posted 12 February 2008 - 11:58 PM
And Obama certainly sounds better than Hillary (whose voice makes me cringe, and ideals make me shake with fear), but he's still for any things that I'm against.
The fact that the government is paying farmers to grow ethanol rich crops (i.e. corn), is yet ANOTHER thing that's helping to kill our economy. But, because Obama believes in global warming (like most Dems), he's for it.
The only problem is, is that like I said, the porcess of getting th ethanol will take 1.29 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of ethanol made. Which is actually BAD for the economy, and CERTAINLY doesn't solve our fuel crysis problem.
On the other hand, we have billions of gallons of crude oil just waiting to be drilled for up in Alaksa. That oil will save our economy in more ways than one, and would be a huge step towards stabalizing it. Unfortunately, both Obama and Clinton are against it because it'll destroy the habbitatas of the VERY FEW animals living in the area around the drilling sites. That, and the whole "Oh noez! CO2 will kill us with it's magical heat trapping abilities!" thing.
#81
Posted 13 February 2008 - 12:07 AM
#82
Posted 13 February 2008 - 12:13 AM
The US needs to be an energy independent country, who does not depend on foreign oil from Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and the likes. Producing home grown fuel (ethanol) while the smarts around the world and US develop a sustainable/perfect energy source (eg. Nuclear) is perfectly normal and logical.
Also, for fuel prices to decrease you need competition. Companies like Exxon Mobil and Conoco-Phillips will just flock to Alaska while another energy source is being developed, and there wouldn't be a short term decrease in fuel price.
You need to have multiple energy sources for competition and innovation to kick in.
#83
Posted 13 February 2008 - 01:51 AM
And Eugine, I don't see how you think that making ethanol will make us energy independant.
First off, it takes 1.29 gallons of foreign oil to make one gallon of ethanol. Like Glenn Beck said, that's like trying to get rich by paying $1.29 for one dollar bills. It just doesn't work. Regardless of how much ethanol we would make, we would still depend on foreign oil. AND, it would STILL be "bad for the environment," according to the beliefes of global warming, because just the process of making the ethanol still produces CO2, lete alone the use of it, which produces even more. The idea is that the corn that's planted will suck it all back up. Yeeeaaaahh.....right. The clouds of CO2 will somehow magically float towards the farms. Sure, the CO2 will want to spread out and seek equilibrium (sp?), but you're not considering the effects of wind, and the fact that CO2 will constantly be poured into the air. Thus, it does not solve smog problems. And we still have "global warming" (according to people who believe that).
Second off, making ethanol, at least the way the left wing of the government is supporting it, is basically like burning our food! We're trading out our FOOD for ethanol! And ethanol will get used up faster than our bodies would've used up the corn, or other vegetables. The Liberals are paying farmers to grow ethanol producing plants such as corn. The problem with that, is the the farmers are planting progressively smaller crops of other plants because they can make loads more money off of the corn. WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO EAT. W.T.F.
THIRD off, the United States does not physically have the room to be able to plant enough corn to be able to fuel all of out cars off of ethanol. It is physically impossible for us to be able to become energy independant off of ethanol alone. We would need a LOT more land than what is available for cultivateing. Even if we used E85 instead of pure ethanol, we still wouldn't have enough space to grow both the corn, and the food that we need to survive
Fourth off, growing corn for ethanol is itse;f HORRIBLE for the economy. BECAUSE farmers are growing corn instead of crops that we need more of, like wheat, we're IMPORTING the crops we don't have enough of. Meaning that we're spending money thar we DON'T HAVE TO SPEND.
You can thank the Liberals for our failing economy now, because even if we pull COMPLETELY out of Iraq, they will still allow illegals to suck money from us, they will still mismanage our money, and they will STILL be trying to support ethanol.
Also, as of right now, NONE of the candidates have even a half-assed plan of how to save our economy. But what makes Clinton and Obama worse, is that they're promising to spend even more money that we DON'T have. They're just going to borrow it from China or someone else, and after a while, the Yen will actually be worth more than the USD. They're promising to rasie the minimum wage (one of the very few things I agree with them on), give free tuition to ANYONE going to college (WTF?! Do you know just how easily it would be for "college students" to get that money, and then NOT use it for college? Because that WILL happen. Students should have to work their asses off to be offere tuition. Not just have it handed to them.), and then on top of all that, they're offering absurd ways of getting people healthcare! They have YET to tell us just WHERE THE HELL THEY'RE GETTING THE MONEY FOR THIS.
The funds that will be available to them, at least the portion of it that's actually American money, and not borrowed form China, will last them a year tops, at that rate. Even if Hillary "loans" herself more money, she won't be able to keep her promises for even one term.
The only thing that the Democratic nominees can offer, is national bankruptcy.
Truthfully, the Republican candidates aren't offering a whole lot more, besides lower taxes, which will actually help the economy, and the fact that so far, I have yet to hear any of their plans that involve spending **** loads of money that we don't have.
And Coz, global warming isn't caused by CO2 emmisions, nor is it something un-natural being caused by humans.
The earth's axis wobbles, causing it to tilt towards a more horizontal, or verticle position. This causes temperatures to be either more extreme, or more mild. This cycle repeats itself every few decades or so.
There's even a list of 400 scientists who dissagree with the common beliefes about global warming.
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/arti...cfm?artId=22529
But this topic isn't directly related to global warming so....
#84
Posted 13 February 2008 - 09:55 AM
#85
Posted 13 February 2008 - 01:50 PM
And also, it's not just using the ethanol technology as it currently is - it's also about investing and providing government funding for further research & development in alternative fuels.
#86
Posted 13 February 2008 - 08:12 PM
Quote
We physically don't have enough farmable acreage to plant all the corn needed to fuel our cars. We would need two and a half times more acreage to be able to fuel our cars on ethanol. And that's even if everyone only used 50 gallons a month. So unless all cars start to get REALLY good gas mileage, it's not gonna happen.
And also, as of right now, it still takes electricity to split hydrogen from water. That electricity comes mostly from coal powered power plants, so hydrogen still isn't an "envrionmentally safe" fuel. Plus, hydrogen fuel cells still have a ways to go until they can really be practical. Same goes for electric cars.
Basically, the left wing of our government is willing to burn up our food supply just to stop "global warming," which continues to be challenged by many other theories. All of which have plenty of research put into them, and aren't all funded by the same person.
And Coz, look here. Though it does say that the cycle takes 41,000 to complete, and although it also says that the tilt is steadily decreasing, there's also another variable called nutation, which cycles through every 18.6 years (about two decades). The tilt is just enough to change the maximum and minimum temperatures of the globe.
The article where I origionally heard the idea that the tilting is what's causeing the temperature to change, was in an article by IBD (Investor's Buisness Daily).
My mom probably has the article somewhere around our house still. I'll have to find it and scan it.
#87
Posted 13 February 2008 - 08:40 PM
Anywayz,
GL said:
The world has not invested enough in alternative energy resources, and throwing ethanol away and saying "it isn't effective" is really not smart imo. I'm not saying ethanol is the solution, but the world needs to try everything, and let the market decide which is the best.
*sigh*. I'm tired of people denying global warming.
And Toasty, people like you are the reason your country will never be unified. Please stop being "Republican" or "Democrat" but American.
#88
Posted 13 February 2008 - 10:02 PM
And ethonal IS NOT effective nor is it efficient, the market decided it. The only 'perfect' energy source I can imagine would be Nuclear Fusion. Unfortunaly, were wasting our time with ethonal and hydrogen cars when we should be focusing on things we know will pay off in the end.
...We need a Global Warming topic.
#89
Posted 13 February 2008 - 10:12 PM
Anywayz, wait... When did the market decide?
Last time I checked ethanol fuel use is increasing throughout the world.
Oh, and please, do some research. Toasy is exaggerating the bad of ethanol.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...26_ethanol.html
Oh, and bring on the global warming topic =)
#90
Posted 14 February 2008 - 01:02 AM
Nuclear fusion, like DS suggested, is probably the best altrenative energy source we know of. The only thing better would be some kind of fusion or whatever reactor that uses antimatter, which has more potential energy than any other substance known to man. Unfortunately, we don't have and abundance of antimatter anywhere near us. Fusion not only will provide more energy than nuclear fission (what we use now), it will be clean and last a long, long time. Plus, we might even be able to use the biproducts for useful things. You can find many different elements inside the sun,. Pretty much everything from hydrogen to lead. Any heavier, and the sun becomes unstable. But that's predicted to happen many billions of years from now.
Ethanol just isn't practical for now. But really, the process for makeing ethanol would have to be FAR more efficient then it is right now. Way too much energy is lost in the process, so we can't get enough gallons ethanol to equal the amount of energy contained in one gallon of gasoline. The law of conservation of energy pretty much makes it impossible for now.
And Eugine, watch Glenn Beck on Headline News Network (owned by CNN).
#91
Posted 14 February 2008 - 05:46 AM
I rather believe scientists than someone who does a news show.
And please, me and GL aren't saying "Ethanol all the way!", we're saying try everything which includes Nuclear.
Quote
If you somehow don't want to believe NG, please read -
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...nol_better.html
http://auto.howstuff...hanol-facts.htm
http://www.iowacorn....ethanol_3b.html
If you still do not believe me, please post some link rather than your mouth x.x
#92
Posted 14 February 2008 - 12:08 PM
#93
Posted 14 February 2008 - 01:07 PM
Still, with the Obama momentum (10-0 streak if he wins Wisconsin and Hawii, which he likely will), anything is possible.
#94
Posted 14 February 2008 - 01:58 PM
Toasty, on Feb 12 2008, 05:51 AM, said:
But I'd like to point out one more reason why I wouldn't vote for a Liberal. You know the Cold War? When Reagan was President? Well it's happening all over again. Only this time, the roles are reversed. The reason why the Soviet Union collapsed was because we pretty much crushed it's economy. Well, now OUR economy is plumeting, WE'RE fighting the terrorists, and Putin has delcared an "Arms War" (yeah, like there was really an arms race to begin with. :P He just wants to be the superpower in the world). And the government isn't really doing a whole lot to stop it. Infact, they're actually making it worse. We're BORROWING a crapload of money from China, and that only puts us farther in debt. Probably the best way to get ourselves out of this hole, is to tap in to the HUGE crude oil depository that resides in Alaska. If I remember right, it holds as much oil as there is in the entire middle east. That could EASILY pull us out of debt, and keep us from funding our enemies for years to come. Not only that, but we might actually be able to see gas drop down to the one to two dollar range again. And that sounds really good to me.
The only problem? Liberals like Hillary, Obama, and Al Gore are "worried about the effect it will have on the environment." Oh, how noble of you! You're actually standing for something now! Too bad that'll send us into an economical collapse.
Not only are they (and many other environmentalists who are worried about the [extremely small amount] of wildlife in the area, or CO2 emissions it will produce from use) preventing us from using our best weapon against poverty and the falling worth of the USD, but they're (well, the government, but the government is made up of mostly Liberals, and they're the only ones who support it) paying farmers to grow ethanol producing plants (such as corn). That's all fine and dandy until you notice that it actually takes more gasoline to make the ethanol than the amount of ethanol you get from the process, and that BECAUSE farmers are now getting more money to plant corn, they're planting smaller and smaller crops of other plants that we need. Like wheat (which we're soon going to be importing from China, further funding our enemies). But not only will the price of wheat rise more than the 50% that it already has since January this year, it will rasie the cost of pretty much every other food you can think of, since we get most of our food from farms.
On the other hand, though the only decent Republican candidate that was running has dropped out (Mitt Romney), at least Mike Huckabee will consider using all of that oil we have in Alaska to prevent us from going into another Cold War.
And as far as the war goes, some guys on Anderson Cooper 360 suggested that we "reduce the troops in Iraq to a more managable size (of 50k)." What a load of ****. If you're going to cut the number of troops we have in Iraq to that much, why don't you just pull 'em all out or go and kill the 50,000 left yourself? We're stretched pretty thin as it is over there. If we reduce the number of our troops any more, we'll open holes in our defenses and the number of civilian AND military deaths to what they were before the surge of troops. Despite what many Liberals like to say, the surge has REALLY helped. The number of civilian and military deaths have gone down significantly.
Wow, you're one nasty piece of work, man.
#95
Posted 14 February 2008 - 06:28 PM
And Eugine, I never said I was against alternative energy sources. I just think that were wasting too much time, energy, and precious resources on making ethanol work. Plus, we need a way to put some breath back into our dieing economy fast, and tapping into Alaska is the quickest and best solution.
[EDIT] Oh, and guess what? Obama's plan for our country will cost us nearly 200 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Even if he pulled completely out of Iraq, it wouldn't make any difference in where our economy's headed at all. Infact, it would make it worse.
And Hillary's not doing much better with her more than 200 Billion dollar a year plans.
In contrast, Huckabee's will cost 44 billion a year, and Mc Caine's will cost only 7 billion a year.
Also, take a look at the global poverty act here.
Obama is for that, and though it's nice to give money to the poor, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT.
#96
Posted 15 February 2008 - 06:46 AM
*happy thoughts*
Anyway, GL, since you are the only one who actually voted in this process, what will be your reaction if Obama won the most pleaged delegates, but the superdelegates made Hillary the nominee?
#97
Posted 15 February 2008 - 11:11 AM
I tend to look at the primaries as more of a popularity contest, because when it comes right down to it, Republicans will run the country one way and Democrats will run it another. Individuals make little difference, unless they are radicalists like JFK or Reagan who come in with plans of change. We'll see if Obama will be as radical as he sounds if he becomes president and actually creates change, but right now, as I said, it is a popularity contest right up until the National Conventions.
#98
Posted 16 February 2008 - 12:41 AM
Toasty, on Feb 14 2008, 08:28 PM, said:
And Eugine, I never said I was against alternative energy sources. I just think that were wasting too much time, energy, and precious resources on making ethanol work. Plus, we need a way to put some breath back into our dieing economy fast, and tapping into Alaska is the quickest and best solution.
[EDIT] Oh, and guess what? Obama's plan for our country will cost us nearly 200 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Even if he pulled completely out of Iraq, it wouldn't make any difference in where our economy's headed at all. Infact, it would make it worse.
And Hillary's not doing much better with her more than 200 Billion dollar a year plans.
In contrast, Huckabee's will cost 44 billion a year, and Mc Caine's will cost only 7 billion a year.
Also, take a look at the global poverty act here.
Obama is for that, and though it's nice to give money to the poor, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT.
You support McCain, who recently gave the quote (roughly), "I'll stay in Iraq 100 years if we need to"?
.eugine, on Feb 15 2008, 08:46 AM, said:
*happy thoughts*
Anyway, GL, since you are the only one who actually voted in this process, what will be your reaction if Obama won the most pleaged delegates, but the superdelegates made Hillary the nominee?
It would be very unfortunate, of course. And I certainly would feel "cheated", considering the superdelegates can vote independently of the voters. Still, I've done all I can do, and with the recent Obama momentum, so far things are looking solid.
Sea of Time, on Feb 15 2008, 01:11 PM, said:
I tend to look at the primaries as more of a popularity contest, because when it comes right down to it, Republicans will run the country one way and Democrats will run it another. Individuals make little difference, unless they are radicalists like JFK or Reagan who come in with plans of change. We'll see if Obama will be as radical as he sounds if he becomes president and actually creates change, but right now, as I said, it is a popularity contest right up until the National Conventions.
Nicely said, though keep in mind the race is still very close, and a momentum change or continuation either way could mean a change in the current leader.
And it's not just about that, it's about reinstating the face of the government for the people. That's what Obama would be able to do, I feel (as if the endorsement from several worker unions wasn't indicative of that trust).
#99
Posted 17 February 2008 - 04:40 PM
For me, Huckabe is the only candidate that's remotely worth voting for. And I don't really like him either.
#100
Posted 17 February 2008 - 05:41 PM
Btw if you can't tell I am a conservative and will gladly and proudly state it.
#101
Posted 17 February 2008 - 06:24 PM
Obama is a very inspirational guy man. I think he's great!
Go to his site man, he has very detail plans.
On the outside the taxing of the democrats seems unfair, but honestly do people like Bill Gates, or companies who ship your jobs to China deserve tax breaks? The market operates very biased, so I think taxing the excessively rich to give to the poor is alright.
#102
Posted 17 February 2008 - 06:42 PM
Btw the part it said I misspelled wasn't Barack but it was Obama. but now that I have changed the spelling it says they are both misspelled.
#103
Posted 17 February 2008 - 06:49 PM
http://money.cnn.com...ws/buffett_tax/
Having tax breaks for the rich, while taxing the poor creates even more inequality.
You call yourself a proud conservative, yet you fail to recognise one of Jesus's famous quote:
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
And yes, they have a right to ship the jobs overseas, but I honestly can't believe people like you put profit over country.
#104
Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:01 PM
Does that make a bit more sense. I sorry I didn't explain my point of view a bit more thoroughly last time.
Also tell me if I am coming off as a bit harsh, because I am not meaning to. I just get a little worked up when talking politics.
#105
Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:10 PM
And as for the people who are poor, although many are trapped financially from being able to get a better income, a lot aren't. And for those who are, well you can thank the Liberals. Many of the laws that they've put in act make it harder, not easier, for people who are financially insecure, to become wealthier. And the way they're planning on taxing everyone only makes those poorer people more dependent on the government. Which is a VERY bad idea. The government was designed to handel the military, keep the peace, and enforce law. NOT to take care of the people.
Gio, on Feb 17 2008, 03:41 PM, said:
Btw if you can't tell I am a conservative and will gladly and proudly state it.
Don't ever support a politician just because he looks like he's going to win. That kind of thinking makes it almost impossible for someone (usually the better candidate) to come back and gain momentum. Always base your vote off of the person who you think would be the best in office.
However, I agree with everything else you said. Except that Hillary doesn't really have any ideas for changing either. Just stuff about healthcare (which is the least of our worries atm).
#106
Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:11 PM
And honestly, the government can't change 'mindsets', but it can try to give people a fighting chance. There's a difference with giving tax breaks to lower income working families, and providing cash to people who are not working.
Anyway, why exactly do you support John McCain?
And Toasty, I am talking about people like Paris Hilton. She pays less tax than you.
#107
Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:23 PM
Toasty, on Feb 17 2008, 07:10 PM, said:
And as for the people who are poor, although many are trapped financially from being able to get a better income, a lot aren't. And for those who are, well you can thank the Liberals. Many of the laws that they've put in act make it harder, not easier, for people who are financially insecure, to become wealthier. And the way they're planning on taxing everyone only makes those poorer people more dependent on the government. Which is a VERY bad idea. The government was designed to handel the military, keep the peace, and enforce law. NOT to take care of the people.
Don't ever support a politician just because he looks like he's going to win. That kind of thinking makes it almost impossible for someone (usually the better candidate) to come back and gain momentum. Always base your vote off of the person who you think would be the best in office.
However, I agree with everything else you said. Except that Hillary doesn't really have any ideas for changing either. Just stuff about healthcare (which is the least of our worries atm).
I didn't only opt out of supporting Huckabee just because I didn't think he would win. Honestly for a long while I did support Huckabee and thought that he would make a good president. Another reason I chose not to support him was because I think he lacks experience to deal with the current situations at hand.
It's pretty cool you agree with me. just thought I would say that to.
.eugine, on Feb 17 2008, 07:11 PM, said:
And honestly, the government can't change 'mindsets', but it can try to give people a fighting chance. There's a difference with giving tax breaks to lower income working families, and providing cash to people who are not working.
Anyway, why exactly do you support John McCain?
And Toasty, I am talking about people like Paris Hilton. She pays less tax than you.
As for taxes I think you should set a simple percent for every class then that way everyone is technically equal. In actuality the rich would be paying more if the percentage paid was the same for every class.
As for me supporting McCain. I knew that would eventually be asked. I think he is a calm a collected man who can keep his cool in a tough situation. He is very well versed in foreign affairs and right now I think that should be our biggest concern as country since we have middle eastern countries trying to gain nuclear power whether it be for energy or not there is still the possibility that they could around a go the other way with it. I will say that there are a lot I don't agree on with McCain, but the possibility that there is a candidate that matches anyone perfectly is rare.
#108
Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:38 PM
Toasty said:
Laws like what exactly?
Oh, and Gio - Iran isn't as bad as the media protrays it. It's so sad I once held negative views towards countries like Iran and Palestine. I blame the lack of doing my own research.
#109
Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:41 PM
Toasty, on Feb 17 2008, 09:10 PM, said:
I'm afraid I don't understand - 47 million uninsured Americans is not a priority?
#110
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:01 PM
.eugine, on Feb 17 2008, 07:38 PM, said:
Oh, and Gio - Iran isn't as bad as the media protrays it. It's so sad I once held negative views towards countries like Iran and Palestine. I blame the lack of doing my own research.
I actually do my research to. And may I direct your attention to the time when Iran invaded our embassy and held Americans hostage and it is quite possible that one of those people that held Americans is the President of Iran right now. Yeah your right I guess thats not a threat.
Golden Legacy, on Feb 17 2008, 07:41 PM, said:
As I have said before if you haven't read a few of my posts before. I will gladly help any American who is legitimately struggling financially, but a lot of them have put themselves in the position they are in on their own. Now if you stop sending aid to countries like Darfur (and this may sound harsh) then maybe we could help our own citizens that are poor and willing to get up and work, but do you honestly see that happening. Our government has shown us many times that they have to have their hand in just about everything, including things they shouldn't be involved in.
#111
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:07 PM
Gio, on Feb 17 2008, 10:01 PM, said:
Funny that you mention it. You want to know who helped Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran conflict, gave him support and weapons, and put him into power? The United States did. Kind of goes both ways, no?
Gio, on Feb 17 2008, 10:01 PM, said:
No one chooses to be "put" into that state. If you mean that there are people who don't actively try to settle their lives and work towards getting a job and the like, then there are just as many people who do try hard and give their sincerest effort at getting by - only to have their government fail them. It doesn't make sense to punish those people with the few who don't try, nor is it the government's place to question it. The government exists for the people, they should always take priority first.
#112
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:20 PM
Golden Legacy, on Feb 17 2008, 08:07 PM, said:
Yes but in both cases we would be protecting our countries best interests. For example most of the stuff that goes on over there has to do with our dependence on oil. Also in the Iraq-Iran conflict the current President or Iran wasn't in charge. The reason we provided weapons to Iran then is because we were in favor of the Shah being in charge and did not want him to be overthrown. The Shah was in favor of democracy and willing to work with the United States. Then the revolution in Iran came about and he was overthrown.
Golden Legacy, on Feb 17 2008, 08:07 PM, said:
Yes a lot of people do choose to be put in that state. They waste their money on drugs and alcohol, you know the works. For the people who are in a poor situation they should go to the unemployment office. They give you a check and actively help you search for a job. I know it will be hard for them at first but they were put in a harder situation by the Lord our God and I think if they live by their faith in him that he will see them through it.( this is where my disagreement is usually stopped because not everyone I disagree with are Christians.)
#113
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:29 PM
Gio, on Feb 17 2008, 10:20 PM, said:
Anyway, don't really understand what you are talking about since the Shah isn't a person, but a name for leader.
Oh, watch this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...we_b_86035.html
#114
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:38 PM
Also I advise that you watch that video again and pick out the part where the U.S. is Deceived by the British government.
#115
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:52 PM
I strongly believe in change by example and not force. Plus, if history is any indication, it always haunts the US.
Gio, on Feb 17 2008, 09:23 PM, said:
#116
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:56 PM
#117
Posted 22 February 2008 - 02:07 AM
.eugine, on Feb 17 2008, 05:11 PM, said:
And honestly, the government can't change 'mindsets', but it can try to give people a fighting chance. There's a difference with giving tax breaks to lower income working families, and providing cash to people who are not working.
Anyway, why exactly do you support John McCain?
And Toasty, I am talking about people like Paris Hilton. She pays less tax than you.
Paris Hilton should have all of her money stripped from her. She can't use it wisely and only tries to get more. And without working for it at that.
I don't support McCain. He'd make a horrible president. I still support Mitt Romney even though he's not running anymore.
But I do think that McCain would do a better job than Obama. Obama's a great speaker and all, but I just disagree with him on WAY too many things. I almost disagree with McCain as much as I do with Obama, but I still agree with McCain on more things.
But let me make this clear one more time: I don't like McCain.
#118
Posted 02 March 2008 - 12:45 PM
Gio, on Mar 2 2008, 02:30 PM, said:
Well, I do love Barack Obama =)
Isn't he one awesome guy? I just think Hillary is the better candidate. I think she has a likeability problem though. She is just so damn educated though! Watching her giving specifics to any question is so damn awesome! On the flipping ball. She even knew the next President of Russia! Who here knows it without doing a Google search? She is ready to lead =)
Honestly, both candidates are awesome, and I would be satisfied with any.
#119
Posted 02 March 2008 - 12:49 PM
.eugine, on Jan 14 2008, 11:04 PM, said:
Where exactly will the US government get the money to fun its war then?
Oh and yeah, I want Mitt Romney or Barack Obama to win.
If there had to be a democrat in office I would probably go with Hillary to. When I look at Obama's record he has voted on the Left-wing side every time. I mean you can't be liberal all the time same goes for conservative to. It just unbalanced.
#120
Posted 02 March 2008 - 12:56 PM
.eugine, on Feb 6 2008, 07:07 PM, said:
I think this would be awesome -
Hilary - President
Obama - Vice president
Bill - Repair image of USA around the world (since the world loves him!) I dunno maybe Secretary of State?
After 8 years, if they don't screw up... Obama run in 2016, and win the Presidency x3, since being Vice President will give him lots of experience!
Like I said before, people dislike Hillary for no apparent reason. She has a BIG likeability problem.
#121
Posted 02 March 2008 - 01:21 PM
#122
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:22 PM
At any rate, it's time to update on the status of the primaries. Obama is leading by 100 delegates or so and has a momentum now of 11 straight victories. The next primaries are scheduled for March 4th (this coming Tuesday), where Rhode Island, Vermont, Ohio, and Texas all place their votes.
Pay close attention to those latter two states - Ohio and Texas. They are huge states with several hundred delegates at stake. If Clinton hopes to continue to be in the race, she must have a convincing victory in both. Just because of how huge Tuesday's primaries will be, it's being dubbed the "second" Super Tuesday.
It's a very pivotal, important point in this election, and I strongly encourage people to follow the results.
#123
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:27 PM
#124
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:39 PM
#125
Posted 02 March 2008 - 02:41 PM
Whoever becoems president will have alot to work with, yes, but if they pull through, then it will be a major accomplishment.
#127
Posted 02 March 2008 - 09:53 PM
Oh snap, I did NOT just call you out. :rolleyes:
#128
Posted 04 March 2008 - 12:39 AM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 2 2008, 12:22 PM, said:
At any rate, it's time to update on the status of the primaries. Obama is leading by 100 delegates or so and has a momentum now of 11 straight victories. The next primaries are scheduled for March 4th (this coming Tuesday), where Rhode Island, Vermont, Ohio, and Texas all place their votes.
Pay close attention to those latter two states - Ohio and Texas. They are huge states with several hundred delegates at stake. If Clinton hopes to continue to be in the race, she must have a convincing victory in both. Just because of how huge Tuesday's primaries will be, it's being dubbed the "second" Super Tuesday.
It's a very pivotal, important point in this election, and I strongly encourage people to follow the results.
I can't believe my eyes.....Obama is bad enough, but Edwards?
On the topic of delegates though, as long as McCain doesn't get the 1190 or 1192 or whatever, then there's still a chance for Huckabe, or better yet, Mitt Romney, to get the ticket instead of McCain. The Republican party/GOP/whoever will end up deciding who gets on the final ballot should McCain not get all the delegates needed, will likely choose Conservative. That means that unless McCain gets the delegates, he probably won;t get on the ticket.
But come on GL, the only thing that's come out of Obama's mouth that's made sense is to put more troops into Afganistan where the majority of the terrorists are. We're in Iraq right now to keep it stable until they can get someone elected and get on their feet. Then we're out of there completely, or at least for the most part depending on whether they ask for some continued support. But even if we leave some troops for support, it won't be more than a thousand or so, if that.
Obama's got better morals than Hilary, and he's less likely to abuse his power, but the things he would do would only hurt the country. The same goes for Hilary.
Ethanol is not the answer to our energy crisis, so we shouldn't persue it. Pulling out of Iraq before we're finished will result in a disaster. Congress needs to quit playing tug of war and just let the troops do what they ned to do to get the war over with. 'Global Warming' is NOT being caused by CO2, and we don't need to look for "greener solutions." We DO need to get ourselves out of an economical slum. Lower taxes promote the growth of the economy. Getting rid of illegal immigants and NOT allowing them to stay will help the economy. Getting our farmers to grow more things that we need (like wheat, for instance) instead of promoting the growth of ethanol producing plants like corn.
Those things will help the United States. Obama and Hilary are against many of those suggestions.
#129
Posted 04 March 2008 - 12:52 AM
Toasty, on Mar 4 2008, 02:39 AM, said:
I can't believe my eyes.....Obama is bad enough, but Edwards?
You're a conservative, so you really shouldn't be talking back.
Quote
You do realize that Romney withdrew, a few weeks ago in fact? Get with the program, McCain will win all the delegates he needs by today, he is the Republican candidate.
Quote
The argument you're posing is the whole "Pro vs. Anti War" debate that we've addressed countless times before. It goes without saying, by the opinions of myself, the majority of Americans, and the rest of the entire world, that the war in Iraq, as the United States is conducting it, is a lost cause - and was a lost cause since Bush decided to show what a ****ing douche he is (excuse the language) in the hands of an important foreign issue.
Quote
Ethanol is not the answer to our energy crisis, so we shouldn't persue it. Pulling out of Iraq before we're finished will result in a disaster. Congress needs to quit playing tug of war and just let the troops do what they ned to do to get the war over with. 'Global Warming' is NOT being caused by CO2, and we don't need to look for "greener solutions." We DO need to get ourselves out of an economical slum. Lower taxes promote the growth of the economy. Getting rid of illegal immigants and NOT allowing them to stay will help the economy. Getting our farmers to grow more things that we need (like wheat, for instance) instead of promoting the growth of ethanol producing plants like corn.
Those things will help the United States. Obama and Hilary are against many of those suggestions.
I stopped reading when I read "Global Warming is NOT being caused by CO2, and we don't need to look for 'greener solutions'". =/
#130
Posted 04 March 2008 - 02:35 AM
the oscilating temperatures fo the polar ice caps are directly related to the activity of the sun. Back when the caps were getting hotter, there was no increase in CO2. Then they started cooling as the CO2 levels climbed. And now, while the CO2 levels are still climbing, the caps are warming up again.
And as for the global temperature monitoring, well, let's just say that some of the boxes that are holding the sensors aren't being placed where they should be. I.E. right next to the outdoor units for air conditioners, or in most cases, only 3 feet above asphalt.
Basically, there's plenty of proof saying that CO2 is a bunch of bull, but because the media won't publiscise it (besides a few people who speak the unbiased truth, like Glenn Beck), no one pays any attention to it.
And whether or not the war is pointless (which it really isn't if you take the time to look at what it'll do for us to win it), pulling out is even worse. If we win, we'll at LEAST be keeping it from becoming another Vietnam (plus, by winning and allowing Iraq to be stable, we'll have fewer worries about terrorists as long as good minded people are in power).
#131
Posted 04 March 2008 - 09:02 PM
#132
Posted 05 March 2008 - 01:10 AM
And GL, if Romney chose to, he could re-enter the race at any time (well, not now obviously, since McCain got the nomination). It wouldn't be very wise though, unless McCain didn't get enough delegates, and the GOP/whatever had to choose who would get the ticket. Then he could choose to be up for nomination if he wanted. At least that's what I understand.
#133
Posted 05 March 2008 - 05:36 AM
#134
Posted 05 March 2008 - 11:39 AM
In other news, Hillary won the two big contests in Ohio (by a sizeable margin) and the Texas primaries (just barely squeaked by Obama). The funny thing is that Obama is still leading in delegates, but his momentum has been halted.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out - unfortunately, it means that in the meantime, the Democratic party remains divided and can't focus on the general election yet, which is something that the Republicans are uniting over under McCain.
#135
Posted 05 March 2008 - 04:24 PM
This is the first time a woman or an African American has the chance of becoming President, and I'm afraid that whoever loses will be forgetting in history ;_;
Why can't there be co-Presidents?
Hillary and Barack are both awesome people, and I see them comfortably beating McCain.
In any case, I hope John McCain somehow has to drop out (health, scandal would be good :o [one can hope]) so that Mitt Romney can take his place! Yeah, then I'll be loving the republicans again =)!
#136
Posted 05 March 2008 - 09:00 PM
Also I don't think people honestly know that Obama is like 100% liberal. Which means that he has voted liberal on every bill gone through congress no matter how liberal it wass. Which brings up a point I want to make. Everybody has been saying that Obama is a uniter and is going to unite the two parties. I don't see that happening. A uniter would have to agree with the moderate conservatives on some issues and Obama has very obviously not ever voted anything but liberal.
#137
Posted 05 March 2008 - 09:46 PM
So Obama voting against the war doesn't count, and Hillary supporting it initially makes her more liberal?
And besides that, McCain isn't universally liked by Republicans, he too doesn't have a "true" conservative record.
#138
Posted 05 March 2008 - 10:03 PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00002
Speaking of McCain not being 100% conservative. I am glad that he isn't, because I am not 100% conservative. I would say I am about 83% conservative and I would say McCain is about that to.
#139
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:33 PM
#140
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:34 PM
#141
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:35 PM
#142
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:36 PM
It's good for them to release all the negatives now, so that they can prepare themselves for the general campaign. Cuz trust me, McCain is going to get negative to the extreme cuz he can't beat Obama without ruining his credibility.
It'll only make them thougher to beat.
#143
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:38 PM
#145
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:41 PM
Sea of Time, on Mar 6 2008, 06:33 PM, said:
There is one last big state left, and that is Pennsylvania which votes on April 22nd - 188 delegates are at stake (30 of them superdelegates). There is now pressure for Michigan and Florida to redo their primaries just because the race is so close.
EDIT: Great point SoT.
#146
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:42 PM
Funny how those are the only two states I have ever lived in.
#148
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:43 PM
If that's true, then the message from Obama's campaign in my inbox is true. Clinton needed much bigger wins than she got in Texas/Ohio.
#149
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:44 PM
For example the NAFTA situation that Obama was criticised for.
Obama was basically winning because he is running a campaign on hope, and change. His campaign generally was not ready for attack ads, and the last two Clinton ads made his campaign falter to an extent due to the slow coordinated responses.
With this, he now has the experience on how to rebuke negatives, which would have been a disaster in the general campaign. Imagine McCain releasing this NAFTA news in the general campaign. It would have been devastating to Obama imo.
So, no you can't purge negatives, but through experience you can learn how to deal with them.
#150
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:47 PM
#152
Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:54 PM
Regards to the NAFTA situation specifically, I think it was excellent for this to be released in the primary. Yes, this may eat away from Obama's base, but in the general it would have eaten away from the Democrats base.
Imagine McCain releasing this NAFTA deal, and Obama responding slowly to the situation since he lacked proper coordination. McCain would have soared because of this, since he would have really criticised Obama. I honestly think it's time to address any negative any candidate has now, so they can respond effectively to McCain in the general.
#153
Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:00 PM
Gio, on Mar 6 2008, 06:50 PM, said:
Florida and Michigan violated the Democratic party's rules and held their primaries before they were supposed to, and so the national convention said that none of their delegates would be seated, and neither Obama nor Clinton campaigned in the two states. I'm not sure why Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot in time, but it doesn't change the fact that those results were not supposed to be counted. And yes, Florida is a big state, but this was well before Obama really cemented his name and made it a worthy - let alone the leading - contender. We'd have to see the results with both campaigns going all out.
And Eugine brings up a good point - as much as I hated the harsh criticism of Obama's role in NAFTA, better now and leave it amidst the Democratic chaos rather than the national election and being effectively deemed the "inexperienced new guy" against the 70+ year old McCain.
#154
Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:01 PM
#155
Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:07 PM
Clinton has more negatives, but I honestly believe she'll do a good job at addressing them.
And Gio, did you remember how Bush criticised McCain in 2000? The republicans still won despite running a negative primary campaign. But then, people say it was a rigged election =)
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.ph...mp;topic_id=522
#156
Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:12 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080306/pl_nm/...itics_mccain_dc
#157
Posted 06 March 2008 - 05:15 PM
#158
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:17 PM
The democrats really don't concern me. If I was to choose the one I would want to win if one had to be in office, it would be Hilary and I feel like making you all guess why.
#159
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:25 PM
[/sarcasm]
#161
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:36 PM
Anyway, the democrats better pick their nominee quickly and do it properly. Not doing so is gonna help John McCain! Honestly, if the democrats lose this election, they have no chance of winning ever again.
Oh Mitt Romney, I hope John McCain picks him as his VP.
#162
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:48 PM
#163
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:53 PM
Like I've always said, I honestly prefer Republican principles. I just dislike anyone who wants to continue with George Bush policies (and Mr. McCain basically is running for George Bush third term!)
Come on. I don't see McCain changing the world, and America for the better ;_;... Or change the course for the matter.
#164
Posted 06 March 2008 - 09:57 PM
.eugine, on Mar 6 2008, 09:53 PM, said:
Like I've always said, I honestly prefer Republican principles. I just dislike anyone who wants to continue with George Bush policies (and Mr. McCain basically is running for George Bush third term!)
Come on. I don't see McCain changing the world, and America for the better ;_;... Or change the course for the matter.
The highlighted terms definetly don't match up.
Look up the definition of conservative and you will know why. I am pretty sure you already know though
#166
Posted 06 March 2008 - 10:06 PM
–adjective
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Conservative=no change
#167
Posted 06 March 2008 - 10:11 PM
I am talking about economic change, changing the world view of America, illegal immigration, and a whole list of issues. Honestly, if it continues the way Bush has it, I don't see good things ;_;
And unfortunately, whatever happens to USA, affects the entire world.
#168
Posted 09 March 2008 - 10:01 PM
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=dOxaYKHJu3k
Absolutely hilarious twist.
#169
Posted 10 March 2008 - 11:49 AM
Oh and Obama wins Wyoming. Yay.
#171
Posted 10 March 2008 - 07:51 PM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 5 2008, 08:46 PM, said:
So Obama voting against the war doesn't count, and Hillary supporting it initially makes her more liberal?
And besides that, McCain isn't universally liked by Republicans, he too doesn't have a "true" conservative record.
Which is why I hate McCain.
GL, when referring to the Republican party, please don't use McCain. He's one of the worst examples of us out there.
And I find it hilarious that both Democratic candidates used very similar ads. Though I can see how Obama would've used his to make a point about Hilary's (whose ad came first).
#172
Posted 10 March 2008 - 08:29 PM
#173
Posted 11 March 2008 - 01:21 AM
I honestly don't care who endorses McCain, because that doesn't mean anything to me. What means the most, is where he stands on all of the important issues. There might be ONE issue we agree on, but that's it.
#174
Posted 11 March 2008 - 09:41 AM
Quote
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=dOxaYKHJu3k
Absolutely hilarious twist.
i saw this on the news the other day.
#176
Posted 11 March 2008 - 09:26 PM
#177
Posted 11 March 2008 - 10:12 PM
He doesnt even salute the American Flag, how can anyone honestly support him as the leader of the country.
It sickens me.
Most people posting here don't even live in the United States, so of course the liberal perspective is the perfect solution in your eyes. Keep in mind this world hates the person on top, and thats the United States. With a weak president such as Obama, I truely am scared of what is to come in the upcomming years.
#178
Posted 11 March 2008 - 10:27 PM
#179
Posted 12 March 2008 - 02:57 AM
But I think there's about 6 or 7 people here that live in the US, and are still active.
Golden Legacy, on Mar 11 2008, 06:34 PM, said:
Lol, that's a good find. Hilary doesn't stand much of a chance against McCain. However, Obama is likely to at least give McCain a run for his money, if not beat him. That much is true. However, we still have to wait and see.
#180
Posted 12 March 2008 - 11:16 AM
pHantOm, on Mar 12 2008, 05:12 AM, said:
He doesnt even salute the American Flag, how can anyone honestly support him as the leader of the country.
It sickens me.
Most people posting here don't even live in the United States, so of course the liberal perspective is the perfect solution in your eyes. Keep in mind this world hates the person on top, and thats the United States. With a weak president such as Obama, I truely am scared of what is to come in the upcomming years.
Yay a reason to flame America.
Your patriotism is over the top. Hardly anyone in Europe salutes their flag. It doesn't say anything about his leadership capabilities.
Meh, I'm a Clinton supporter to be honest, though I'm not too happy about the woman as a president idea. I guess I'm just a bit anti-feminist, or whatever it's called.
#181
Posted 12 March 2008 - 11:21 AM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 11 2008, 07:34 PM, said:
I laughed at that, and hopefully it is accurate. Obama seems to be the choice of destiny right now, as the streak begins anew with his win in Mississippi. But the question is, will he get enough superdelegates? Do the superdelegates lean towards Clinton because they know she's experienced? That's the biggest wait-and-see in my mind.
#182
Posted 12 March 2008 - 02:07 PM
Toasty, on Mar 12 2008, 01:57 AM, said:
But I think there's about 6 or 7 people here that live in the US, and are still active.
Lol, that's a good find. Hilary doesn't stand much of a chance against McCain. However, Obama is likely to at least give McCain a run for his money, if not beat him. That much is true. However, we still have to wait and see.
Me and 13lue Mage both live in California.
#183
Posted 12 March 2008 - 05:29 PM
Obama has 1404 actual, pledged candidates to Clinton's 1244. For all the talk of Clinton leading in superdelegates, she's only doing so by 30 (237-207), which leaves for a current total of:
Obama: 1611
Clinton: 1480
Just to finish off the math here, that's a 131 differential - and this is after Clinton's so-called victories in Ohio and the Texas primary. You're right SoT, Obama has the momentum anew, and it's just a shame that they're still dragging it on, when the Democratic party could have the potential to unite now under the (clear) leader.
And phantom, for the record, I'm from the USA and I'm going for Obama. :P
#185
Posted 12 March 2008 - 08:53 PM
Basically, they aren't bound by anything.
#186
Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:06 AM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 12 2008, 04:29 PM, said:
Obama has 1404 actual, pledged candidates to Clinton's 1244. For all the talk of Clinton leading in superdelegates, she's only doing so by 30 (237-207), which leaves for a current total of:
Obama: 1611
Clinton: 1480
Just to finish off the math here, that's a 131 differential - and this is after Clinton's so-called victories in Ohio and the Texas primary. You're right SoT, Obama has the momentum anew, and it's just a shame that they're still dragging it on, when the Democratic party could have the potential to unite now under the (clear) leader.
And phantom, for the record, I'm from the USA and I'm going for Obama. :P
Super Delegates count for roughly 1,000 or so voters. Might even be 10,000. Can't remember.
I know that they don;t count for just one vote, because then they wouldn't be called "Super" Delegates, they'd just be called "Delegates." And no, that's not my only reasoning.
#187
Posted 13 March 2008 - 08:33 AM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 12 2008, 10:53 PM, said:
Basically, they aren't bound by anything.
I'm certain about this. It just means that they can vote as the wish, not as the voters of their representative district/city/county vote.
#188
Posted 13 March 2008 - 12:03 PM
#189
Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:10 PM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 13 2008, 09:33 AM, said:
I'm certain about this. It just means that they can vote as the wish, not as the voters of their representative district/city/county vote.
GL I am with toasty. I saw a special about superdelegates about a month ago and they said that superdelegates can change their vote at any time just like you said, and they said that they count for WAY more than 1 vote. I just can't remember the number. If I am wrong then CNN lied to me, but that wouldn't suprise me. lol
#191
Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:27 PM
#192
Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:34 PM
#193
Posted 13 March 2008 - 09:10 PM
Gio, on Mar 13 2008, 09:27 PM, said:
Oh you've got to be @#$%ing kidding me.
CNN:
Superdelegates: Democratic officeholders and party officials guaranteed national convention seats; can support the candidate of their choice.
---
BBC:
Do all delegates have to vote at the convention as directed by the result of the primaries and caucuses?
No. Both parties have a certain number of pledged delegates, whose vote is determined by the result of the primary or caucus in their state, but they also have a certain number of unpledged delegates (known as super-delegates in the Democratic Party).
Unpledged delegates are free to choose which candidate to support.
Q&A: US primaries and caucuses
How crucial are the unpledged delegates?
In both parties they form a minority within the ranks of delegates at the convention - about 20% in the Democratic case, and between 6% and 20% of Republican delegates (the Republicans do not provide an official breakdown, and different experts give different figures).
They are mostly high-ranking party officials, members of Congress and state governors.
In most years, candidates do not have to worry too much about wooing unpledged delegates. But if the race gets very close - as it is in 2008 on the Democratic side - unpledged delegates cannot be ignored.
So, for example, on 5 March, as results of the Texas and Ohio primaries were still coming in, Barack Obama had won 1,275 pledged delegates by AP's calculations, and Hillary Clinton had won 1,150.
The remaining 828 pledged delegates would not be sufficient for Mrs Clinton to pass the winning post of 2,025 delegates, even if she won them all, and Mr Obama would have to win the overwhelming majority.
So clearly the unpledged "super-delegates" could play a decisive role.
Super-delegates are free to "vote with their conscience" for whichever candidate they feel will be best for the party.
Some Democrats, however, have expressed concerns that the super-delegates could hand victory to a candidate who has not won the popular vote and have called on the super-delegates to support en masse whichever candidate has won the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
---
NY Times
There are 796 of them, and if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton emerges from the primary season with the 2,025 delegates necessary to secure the nomination, they will in essence serve as tiebreakers. That is a result both sides see as increasingly likely.
Known as superdelegates because they are free to cast their votes at the convention as they see fit, they are the object of an intensifying and potentially high-stakes charm offensive by the candidates and their supporters.
#194
Posted 13 March 2008 - 10:07 PM
#195
Posted 13 March 2008 - 10:43 PM
I think what you may have heard is that superdelegates are representing the votes of thousands of peoples in their districts/counties/cities, etc., and because they can choose to either agree OR disagree with those votes, it's as if they're "controlling" the voting decisions of those same people that they represent.
Read that over again, it'll make sense.
#196
Posted 14 March 2008 - 04:07 AM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 13 2008, 11:43 PM, said:
I know I agree with you. It is very undemocratic. they even said that it was the most undemocratic thing to do on that CNN report I saw.
#197
Posted 15 March 2008 - 03:00 AM
Golden Legacy, on Mar 13 2008, 07:33 AM, said:
I'm certain about this. It just means that they can vote as the wish, not as the voters of their representative district/city/county vote.
sry.
Well then they're not even delegates. Just regular voters.
Even people on CNN, the supposed "only unbiased news network," claimed that the Super Delegate's votes were worth a lot more than a regular Delegate/voter.
To be honest though, CNN's not NEARLY as bad as they used to be. Up until 4 to 8 years ago, the "Clinton News Network" was a pretty accurate nickname.
#198
Posted 15 March 2008 - 06:27 PM
Is it true that Mitt Romney will most likely be McCain VP? I think it'll be a great idea...
#200
Posted 15 March 2008 - 08:47 PM
Seriously though. I wish Mitt would've done better in the polls at the beginning. D: The only reason why people are voting for him is to keep up his momentum so that he'll fair better against the other candidate in the final election.
[EDIT] Just checked, Super Delegates are worth 6000 votes each. The Super Delegates alone could determine who gets the ticket. That's messed up imo.