When it becomes Hillary v McCain
 

Where is your vote going? I might just write in Radar.

Bruce!

no wait...he is so traditional.

umm ok I am thinking McCain but I have to wait to see how the general election goes. Hilary is my canadate but she isn't going to be allowed to steal the nomination.
oh, snap...did I say steal?:smack:

did I ever mention that I think McCain is HOTT?





hee heee!! I know it makes you guys sick!

I appreciate your vote and I think you're being very premature in assuming it will be Hillary vs. McCain. I think they will be consoling each other after they both lose to Obama.

yeah, what was it you said? it would take a dead girl or a live boy to keep Obama from winning?

we'll see about that. it could just be that his own words (just words, anyone?) didn't really excite enough people into believing he'd make a good president.

Anyway, out of those three I have to vote for McCain even if I've never been a fan. He isn't in love with universal healthcare and not a big fan of higher taxes for the supposed rich.

McCain isn't in favor of universal healthcare, but he is in favor of staying in an unconstitutional war of aggression that is costing more than any universal healthcare plan would ever cost, and which is killing American kids, and making America the scourge of the world. He thinks we should stay 100 years if necessary.

We've spent more money in Iraq than it would cost to provide insurance to each and every single person in America (documented or not) for the next 30 years.

I'll take higher taxes and less dead Americans than to make more enemies around the world, spend my daughter and her grandchildren into debt by throwing money away when it could be used to help people, etc. I consider income taxes to be slavery, but if I'm going to be enslaved anyway, I'd rather see it for a better cause than an unjustifiable, unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional war.

Also, no tax increase by Democrats will ever equal the HUGE and invisible tax increase we got from Bush in the form of inflation and a weaker dollar. He's reduced our income and our spending ability by more than any Democrat could have.

Amended:
Mostly agree. Wow - me & Radar. Nothing against you bub, but I figure we're pretty much opposite ends of the political spectrum on most topics.

It strikes me as the 2000 and 2004 vote. Two really fucked up choices. Choose the best of the worst. Like a bad poker hand either way you go you are going to lose all yer frigging money.

I will never vote for Hitlery, I would rather not vote for McCain.

A Demoncratic Congress and a Demoncratic President would lead to nothing more than wealth redistribution and errosion of the Second Amendment.

McCain.
[holding nose]

Let's hope you're right but I don't know if you can win the Democratic nomination without white unionists. Hillary is pushing the "fighter" line right now which is exactly why I don't want her in the White House. We need to take it down a notch for a few years. It'd be nice to split the branches between the parties. A President who is nonconfrontational might even work with the other side ending up with balanced policies.

This objection is getting less and less relevant. It didn't happen in 1992... and an R pres and R congress for 6 years spent like a drunken Orange County housewife on Rodeo drive.

Did he say that? Did he really?

Yes.


He did make the nonsensical caveat "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." So maybe he was pretending that the question was, "If Americans stop being injured, harmed, wounded, and killed, how many years should we keep a military base in Iraq?"

"Why not 100?"

Oh goodie, we can have a Guantanamo in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Do we have bases in Germany? Japan? Any other spots where once we were in a shooting war?

Once?

That's where the analogy falls apart.

I guess you lost me there. How does it fall apart?

Let's pretend for a minute. It's WWII and a presidential hopeful is asked how long we would have troops in Germany. The hopeful responds by pointing out that Americans don't really care too much about where troops are stationed as long as they aren't being killed and injured in combat and goes on to say that having bases in Germany might be strategically useful for an unknown amount of time into the future. Would you feel the need to announce that the candidate will keep us in a state of war indefinitely? Or would you accept that unfortunately, there may be some value to the idea of having bases in the region if and when victory is secured?

There is a huge difference between what he said and what some people are saying he meant. I'm not a McCain fan, but show some objectivity in your dislike for the man.

Keeping troops in Iraq will keep us in a state of war indefinitely. How long is he willing to let that go on, in hopes of it turning into Germany?

OK, I didn't hear him say he was going to leave troops there forever regardless of peace/war status. I thought it was a pretty general statement making a very good point that we need to quit all the talk about what date can we circle on the calendar for a pull-out and instead focus on what it will take to get us to a situation where our troops aren't being shot at on a daily basis. Maybe that is a complete pull-out, maybe it isn't but I think his point was valid.

If the war is your primary issue then fair enough, but let's acknowledge that we are currently at war. 2 of the 3 candidates voted in favor of authorizing the war. The third candidate stands on his "I was against the war" credentials while ignoring the fact that he was a nobody when the issue was at hand. Let's not pretend that Obama stood in a position of power, saw the same information that the other two did and was the sole shining light of intelligence that was ignored. Pretty much everyone in power bought into the Iraq war to some degree in '02/'03. We're there. Now what? What is the best way to extract ourselves from the mess and leave some possibility for stability after we're gone?

That's the bottom line, well stated.

You base this on your years of experience doing what?

There were 26 people in the Senate who voted against the unconstitutional "authorization of force" against Iraq. They were in the same position of power as any other Senator including Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. These 26 people did see the same bogus evidence, and were told the same things as the others, but they had the foresight, intelligence, and judgment to know they were being lied to and to stand up for what was right.

Senator Byrd begged the American people to stop this and said their children would die from it. Sadly, he was right.

The fact is Obama is better with foreign policy than either of the other candidates and he's more able to give a rational and intelligent answer if you call him at 3am.

Of those 26 people who voted no, how many are in the presidential race? Zero, you say? So there are two people in the presidential race who were in the senate at the time and they both voted for authorization.

What exactly in Obama's experience has better equipped him for foreign policy issues? Was it his experience as a community activist? His time in the state legislature? His term in the senate? What exactly? He may very well be capable of showing exceptional skill in the area if he wins the race, but don't point to his opposition to the war when he was a state legislator and had no say in the matter as evidence of his expertise.

This is no longer an issue of how we got there, but an issue of how best to get out. In addition to that, it is important to remember that the war may be the single biggest issue, but it isn't the only issue a President will be involved in.

swayed by marketing, much?;)

Then you didn't hear him answer a question relevant to the reality of the situation. He's asked about Bush's refusal to contemplate leaving Iraq, and he says that if everything turns out hunky dory we could stay there forever?
What it took for Germany and Japan was the defeat of their military. Already done in Iraq. That model won't work. What it took in Korea was an entire half of the country (geographically) supporting us. We're trying to turn our massive embassy and the Green Zone into South Korea.Step 1: Acknowledge extraction as a goal. No government with the appearance of being our puppet can provide stability, and one in the shadow of a 104 acre fortress in the middle of Baghdad will have to work hard to not give that appearance, even assuming we withdraw most of the troops.

Fair enough, which candidate has said that extraction is not a goal?

There is no interpretation of "why not 100" that includes extraction, whether the 100 years is during or after hostilities.

So what you're saying that unless a candidate stands up and says "I promise to remove every single american from Iraqi soil on such and such date" then they are a proponent of war without end?

What exactly makes Obama better at foreign policy? Perhaps it's the fact that he is from an international family. Perhaps it's has something to do with his travels abroad. it doesn't really matter what the reason is, the fact remains that he's displayed better judgment, and leadership ability than the other two candidates.

As far as the war not being the only issue goes, if all Barrack Obama did was end the war on his first day in office and do nothing else, he'll be a thousand times more accomplished and respected around the world than George W. Bush and his entire family will ever be.

If McCain's cue for ending the war is when Iraq is stable and Americans are no longer targets of attack, and his "why not 100" only includes time after that point, then he is in favor of staying well over 100 years.

Kind of an underwhelming goal if you ask me.

Would the judgement I'm meant to admire being his frequent use of the "present" vote to avoid having to actually take a stand on anything? And I'm looking for the leadership experience too, where was that again?

Well, if he wins I hope you're right about having an international family being great training for the presidency. As it stands though, I'm skeptical.

His frequent use of the "present" vote proves he has better judgment than most. Many times, legislators are asked to vote on a piece of legislation without ever even being given a copy of it to read. This happened with the Patriot Act.

By voting "present" he is stating that he won't vote for or against something that he doesn't have an appropriate amount of information to make a judgment on. He's preventing people from rushing thing through without them being read carefully and understood.

He takes a stand when he's got all the information. I'm a lot more skeptical of having Bush part II, or Clinton Part II. It's about time we had a White House that didn't have a Bush or a Clinton in it.

It seems to me that a leader would stand and make a point by drawing attention to the issue of bills being pushed through improperly, rather than meekly voting "present" and going about his day.

Trust me, I don't want Bush/Clinton part deux... but I'm not willing to just say "hey look! there's a guy who hasn't held office long enough to piss too many people off, let's make HIM president."

I don't think any of those three are ideal for the job, but we've got to pick someone. I understand everyone has to hold their nose and pick someone I just don't get the whole Obama/Messiah phenomenon.

Here's the way I see it. Clinton is a bitter, nasty, bitch who is in tight with the old-school political machine. She lies about having snipers fire on her, she has been involved in shady real estate deals where the witnesses mysteriously died before they could testify. She is well-acquainted with those who create back room dirty deals and she's ready to work with them on day 1 so we can get more of the same.

McCain is an out of touch old geezer who thinks the war in Iraq is a great idea and has said we should stay for 100 years. He is a racist who calls Vietnamese people gooks. He turned his back on veterans even though he is one in order to save a few billion, but has no problem with us spending a trillion in Iraq in an unnecessary, unwarranted, unprovoked, and unconstitutional war. He barely has a thought in his head or a hair on his head and he too would bring us more of the same.

Then we've got Obama. He's more young, vibrant, energetic, articulate, intelligent, classy, and dynamic than the other candidates. He's an excellent orator (which should be a requirement of being president), he is well-respected throughout the world, and let's face it, as a black guy who plays basketball he makes America look cooler. He genuinely cares about people in need. He has spent years working with underprivileged people in Chicago. He is everything that George W. Bush isn't....educated, cool, popular, charismatic, respected, etc.

He's exactly the person we need to fix the damage Bush has done to America's reputation around the world, and to improve race relations here and abroad. I realize he's not a Muslim, but perhaps having the middle-name Hussein and his wanting to get us out of Iraq (where we never belonged in the first place) will make Muslim terrorists less likely to attack.



He is by far the best of the 3 candidates. I don't think he's the messiah. In fact I don't think there is such a thing. I just know that I'll take him in a minute over the other two.

I'd still go Hillary, but I know plenty others, younguns that would just opt out. Apparently here too. And that would be a cryin shame.

I agree with Lookout. I don't think Obama is any sort of savior. He is a neo-liberal and has many advisers that display hawkish behavior. He many be against movements in Iraq and Iran but I really doubt he will be against all the smaller campaigns that won't make the evening news every night.

As far as I'm concerned, Obama is just another politician and my view will not change until he can prove me wrong if he gets elected. Bottom line, Obama is too good to be true.

Your cynicism is showing.

Cite. That is an extremely derogatory statement to make - even for you. Put up or retract.

Google is your friend. It was widely reported.

I stand corrected...

Hitlery vs. Obama

Enjoy!

Deathmatch 2008

http://www.nypost.com/spsections/hill_vs_obama/

Is he talking about all Vietnamese people, or just the ones who tortured him for five and a half years?

I HATE NIGGERS!

no, no. youre taking me out of context! to me, niggers just means those black people who stole my wallet!



...im not buying it.

That would be too bad about your wallet, but when you are tortured for five and a half years I will be here to give you the benefit of doubt.

Actually he's been nailed for that one pretty frequently and he's unapologetic about it. While I detest this and all use of racial slurs, I will at least give him a half point of respect back for the fact he doesn't grovel and say it was a one off mistake that will never happen again after rehab and sensitivity training.

I'm not a cynic. I just don't believe that a US president will change anything. If there is going to be change, the US population will have to stand up and take matters into their own hands.

Just by looking at Obama's key phrase you can see it. Change does not happen overnight. Change cannot happen from a small group of individuals. Change, in the sense that is being used, is sociological movement where the the majority has to take part if it is going to be successful. One large factor that helps Obama is that many just want to blame our problems on an elite class. Even though that "group" is responsible for many problems, the real issues lies within the social structure of the country itself. Racism is not just brought on the country by rich white men. It is a social structure that engulfs everyone, people of color included, and unless everyone is willing to change, racism cannot go away. That works exactly the same way for all social doctrines.

Obama will also not stop US imperialism. Some of his advisers are hawks and Obama will most likely be much closer to Bill Clinton in terms of foreign policy. Just look at Obama status on the socio-economic scale. He isn't that far from any of the Republicans including Bush and McCain.

Another thing is that even if Obama is pure, he will have a hard time working with congress if they are corrupt and no one is doing shit to change that as shown by other threads on this forum.

I must agree. When one of you is a POW for some length of time come back and let us know how it worked out for your liberal sensitivities.

Thats it I want a third party vote. Ron Paul perhaps, or will Natter rerun.

Sure it's understandable that he hates the "Gooks." They imprisoned him and tortured him. I may understand his hatred, and don't blame him for it, but does that make him a great candidate for president?

A President who has a congress controlled by his own party can accomplish a lot. Bush accomplished a tremendous amount of things. None of them were good for America, but he accomplished them. He accomplished spending more than a Democrat's wet dream with a Republican controlled Congress and him rubber stamping everything. He made it through his first 6 years without a single veto.

He wasn't imprisoned and tortured by "gooks". He was imprisoned and tortured by the North Vietnamese. I also don't blame him for his feelings, but nobody who was locked up in a Tiger Cage, or tortured, or who uses racial slurs against the people of other nations, or who supports and wants to continue violations against the bill of rights, and unconstitutional wars of aggression, should be president.

It is very easy to get a bunch of children together and get a room dirty but it nearly impossible to get a different group of children together and clean it up after them.

I guess that would depend on the kids. If you have a bunch of taggers in a room it will get tagged. If you next fill the room with boyscouts, the room will get cleaned up pretty quickly. I'm not saying the Republicans are taggers...they are thieves and murderers. I'm not saying the Democrats are boyscouts... they are just thieves.

Well, let's see, we're in a war -- against the explicitly fascist, antilibertarian, totalitarian purveyors of the ol' Non-Integrating Gap-osis -- and the one war-fighter the Dems seem to have is Lieberman, who isn't in the running.

You know -- the very guys Radar doesn't want to fight. Not now, not ever, never. Funny -- they'd fight him, given a quarter of a chance.

Then too, there's the American habit of if one party dominates the Legislative Branch, put the other in the Oval Office as a check and balance. Doesn't stay that way all the time, of course, but you get it often.

I want a war fighter who can visit their just deserts upon humanity's antidemocratic enemies, whom mankind really should destroy. Doesn't matter much which segment of mankind does the destroying, so long as there are no living fascisto-communist-undemocrats left anywhere, except in an eviscerated, emasculated condition. Don't let them breed, for they will breed war.

The United States military isn't here to win or defend the freedom of any people but our own. It's a DEFENSIVE military and is here only to defend Americans from direct and imminent attacks. It's not here to liberate oppressed people abroad. It's not here to spread democracy or to defend it elsewhere. It's not here to increase libertarianism. It's not here to practice humanitarian aid missions or peace keeping missions. It's not here to overthrow dictators in other nations. It's not here to prevent other nations from building nukes. It's not here to be the police of the world and has no authority to do so even if it were. It is not here to defend human rights in other nations. It's not here to decide who our enemies are and whether or not we should destroy them.

The fact that a war-mongering, imperialistic, idiot like you doesn't like the Democratic candidates is the best endorsement they could get and proof that McCain should not, and will not ever get into the oval office unless President Obama invites him.

And this from a guy who couldn't hack it in the military. :rolleyes:

True, but for the sake of the the analogy, politicians are not boy scouts. Maybe if we had politician merit badges....

DNC chairman under Bill Clinton: Unite behind Obama

WASHINGTON (AP) - A leader of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton switched his allegiance to Barack Obama on Thursday and urged fellow Democrats to end the bruising nomination fight.
"This has got to come to an end," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew told reporters in his hometown of Indianapolis just days before Tuesday's crucial state primary. He said he planned to call all the other superdelegates he knows and encourage them to back Obama.

Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC in 1999, and he led the party through the disputed 2000 presidential race before stepping down in 2001. Andrew endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.

In a lengthy letter explaining his decision, Andrew said he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."

"The ship is taking on water right now," Andrew said at the news conference. "We need to patch those holes, heal the rift and go forward to beat John McCain."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

I see by his post Radar doesn't actually want libertarianism to occur anywhere. Why then did he bother? He might as well have stayed over in the hard Left, whence he seems to have originated.

I want free peoples all over the globe, where Radar is quite explicitly content to leave them in their chains. Chains don't come off without a little crowbar work, you know. I say his views are quite immoral, quite unconscionable -- and quite eccentric, unless the man is at bottom a slavemonger, which on the evidence of his writing and the attitudes he has expressed since I first made his acquaintance, he is. His "don't do anything to free anybody ever" attitude would warm Hitler's cockles, and Stalin's too; the same thing warms them both, so he's not eccentric from a fascistocommunistic point of view. He's not happy with any freedom of thought except that freedom to agree with his -- all his isolationism, all his absence of foreign policy, all his just leaving the Gap to ruin and cause us of the Core more troubles. Phooey on that "idea." It's so poorly founded I'm surprised he allows himself to retain it; I certainly would not. I don't have his manifest xenophobia. Read between his lines and you can see it -- and explicitly in post #53 he lays out not a nation, but a sort of vast monastery, disconnected from the rest of the globe. I've said before that isolationism is a nonstarter; national isolationism would only really work in the absence of any other nation state anywhere on the Earth. This not being the case, some other approach to global socioeconomics seems called for.

Frankly, no American is an imperialist. Our temporary and halfhearted dabbling in it after the Spanish-American War goes to prove the point. It had its roots in mercantilist economic theories of international trade, and we never hewed to these, having started in laissez-faire capitalism, which unlike mercantilism's tying of cash crops and resources from the colonies and empire for manufactured goods returning to those colonies, and free trade elsewhere discouraged, we began as all about free trade, and we've stuck with it, even when we think it hurts, as in NAFTA. Capitalism trumps imperialism and makes globalism -- and makes globalism more efficient too. We preferred and prefer prosperity to naked power, as our national behavior shows. We aren't in, at bottom, any imperial habit. We also know the only real prosperity is a general prosperity. We've never lost sight of that.

I hate politics and politicians even more,and have little idea of how the USA system works but an American guy I know who lives near me said that the USA won't vote in a woman and is not ready for a black president and the Republicans wll get in again,is that a possibility or is he talking nonsense?
I'm curious if that kind of opinion has been heard.

I think he has been out of the country to long. Anything can happen at this point.

Merc's right be-bop, anything can happen--but rest assured, if McCain does win it will be for a wide variety of complicated political reasons, not because "America wasn't ready" for either a woman or a black man. If enough people really were opposed to them on that grounds, neither of them would have made it this far.