Obama vs. McCain

sloopskipper says on Feb 22, 2008, 04:46:

jh, I am a liberal, but can't dispute what you say, except maybe on McCain. I find him a bit scary, especially after reading that article in the Times, which reminded us of the S&L scandal and also his alleged indiscretions, and a continuing pattern of receiving dubious favors from lobbyists, etc.

While the published accounts of his peccadilloes are not of the level of stained blue dresses or wide stances, it might indicate someone whose head is not screwed on too tightly. It was reported that he continued a (dangerous, to him) relationship against the advice of his staff.

Also the possibility of our grandchildren, and maybe, even, great grandchildren fighting in Iraq seals the deal for me. It is time for the U.S. to stop getting involved in (especially) unwinnable wars.

I actually voted for Hillary in the primary, mainly because at that time it seemed that she was more electable than Obama, and could better get the current crowd out of the WH. But that doesn’t seem the case now.

Seems that some people think "everybody's outa step but me".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Feb 22, 2008, 05:28:

I have the utmost respect for John McCain - Vietnam Veteran, but I think he's way past his "sell by date" and, like Reagan, Bush I and Dole before him, he wants us to think that he's entitled to the office by virtue of courage long since past.

Furthermore, I think too many people confuse "honest and genuine" with "stubborn and stupid". Sure, McCain hasn't wavered on his support of the war, some think that's a sign of personal integrity, I think it's a sign of someone too stubborn and/or stupid to learn from experience and admit they made a mistake... the same goes for all of those who got us into the Iraq catastrophe.

I don't think anyone running actually has any business in the oval office. This election, like so many before, will end up as a choice between the lesser of two evils. It's sad, because there are American actually worthy to hbe President, such as Senator Feingold for example, but they seldom run and even less rarely get elected... so much for our great democratic tradition.

Of course, none of this has the slightest to do with Colombia.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Feb 22, 2008, 05:36:

I think he's the best man in the United States Congress.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pedro (☼Travelguide writer) says on Feb 22, 2008, 05:40:

Albatross says on Feb 22, 2008, 06:03:

"Light years ahead of what's in the White House right now".. have to agree with you there.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jh816 says on Feb 22, 2008, 06:22:

wow, quite a bit more distrust for McCain than I had anticipated. His age does worry me a bit, as well as his stance on Iraq. Part of my support, though, comes from the fact that I prefer the president to be of the opposing party as those that control congress. Politicians, as a whole, will line their pockets and pass as many 'pet' projects for their districts if not checked by someone on the other side. Democrats in the WH and congress seems like a prescription for too many government programs. Though a repeal of some of the tax cuts and withdrawal from Iraq would probably pay for a great deal of it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jh816 says on Feb 22, 2008, 06:25:

Though, it would be nice to have someone in the WH that has committed to meet with foriegn officials unfriendly to the US to reach an accord. With Obama's personality and speechmaking, we might actually be the country that the world respects and envies once again

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 22, 2008, 07:08:

"Furthermore, I think too many people confuse "honest and genuine" with "stubborn and stupid". Sure, McCain hasn't wavered on his support of the war, some think that's a sign of personal integrity, I think it's a sign of someone too stubborn and/or stupid to learn from experience and admit they made a mistake... the same goes for all of those who got us into the Iraq catastrophe."

So true, more of the same!

Seems that some people think "everybody's outa step but me".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NJ C Rep says on Feb 22, 2008, 08:08:

Let me say that first that I am a proud supporter of John McCain. He is a man of integrity and the NYT article that came out has been rejected by most people. Nobody has fought harder against corruption and for lobbying/campaign finance reform than John McCain. Like all of us, he learned from mistakes in the past. On the deficit, there is few people that would cut spening like John McCain would.All his political life he has decried wastful spening projects great and small. On the courage fronts, he has done plenty to demonstrate courage and I think calling him "stubborn and stupid" was uncalled for.

On Iraq, let me say this. Any president that is elected has the job of bring the mission to a sucessful conclusion. There job is to make it work and not to go back in a time machine and pretend we can change history.. Any fanticies you have about a democrat bringing them home the day they take office, get that out of your head now. Having siad that, John McCain believed it was the right thing to go into Iraq. So did I and so do alot of Americans. He thought the war was ran horribly and was one of a few republicans calling for Defense Sec Rumsfield to resign. He wasn't for the same od thing in Iraq. The rescent sucess of the "surge" was an idea that he came up with.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Feb 22, 2008, 08:20:

if you Like GW Bush, you'll love McCain. 4 more years of Bush Light as he's been tagged. In 2000 after Bush swiftboated McCain on his Daughter, I would have thought, him being the "Sraight Talker" he claims to be, would have went after the Perps of that nasty rumor; instead McCain Capitulated to Bush. Amazing. He lost that famous backbone that stood in his such good stead in that POW Box in "Nam." On major issues such Heathcare, I have not heard one word from him. On Iraq, he said 100 more years. I'm voting for change and not 4 years of the same old same old,,,

On the Swiftboating of McCain in 2000: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/03/rove_denies_an...

No hay Peor Ciego que el que no quiere Ver o Sordo que el que no quiera Oir--Soy Yo, Sarah Palin, Wasilla Alaska.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

peteyw says on Feb 22, 2008, 08:30:

We may have a McCain presidency by default.

Something went terribly wrong yesterday before the debate. Earlier in the day at a rally in Dallas, the Secret Service ordered the Dallas police to STOP searching and scanning people entering the debate, including their handbags and laptop bags for weapons. This was reported by the Chief of Police who said it concerned him, but the feeling was the 17,000 people 'appeared friendly'.

Let me see, a very liberal 'John Kennedy-like' candidate, in DALLAS, having his SECURITY RELAXED by the SECRET SERVICE that is supposed to protect him?

The Dallas Police Chief opens his mouth and now, this morning a Dallas Police Officer was killed in an 'accident' on her motorcycle while guarding Hillary Clinton.

Hmmmm? Somethings in the air and I don't like it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Feb 22, 2008, 08:33:

Oh oh................wait until Gringoloid gets his hands on this................

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Feb 22, 2008, 08:53:

Even if this accusation of infidelity were true, this kind of past relationship is hardly disqualifying for high office anymore, given a series of more prurient precedents. An affair between adults is a far cry from President Clinton's exploitation of an intern, which involved not merely a failure of character but an abuse of power.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jh816 says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:04:

I think the NY times article is a non-issue. 1) It was run with no verifiable evidence which makes it easily discredited and ignored, 2) being attacked by the NYT is considered by many conservatives as a badge of honor (and this may even help McCain by drawing the ultra-conservatives out to defend hime), and 3) does that part of his life really reflect his ability to serve well as president? I'm a conservative, but can admit that Clinton was a great president (and we know what he did).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

peteyw says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:06:

Looked more like that 21 year old, adult intern was chasing Clinton more than he was chasing her. When you're president you don't have to 'chase skirt', they throw themselves at you. You have to beat them off. It was not him exploiting her, it was her aching to get close to power and he finally gave in.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:12:

peteyw, you are joking? Right?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

peteyw says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:37:

No Aztec, I'm not joking. The attraction of women to power is stronger than the attraction to money, to any athlete or to any rock star.

Why do you think Monica kept the 'proof' on her dress? It was a souvenir.

In McCain's case, he is a powerful senator, he's getting his share of groupies too. Maybe he got some cucha, maybe he didn't, but its there for him if he desires. Its a fact of life for men (and women) in power. That shouldn't be held against him.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Albatross says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:46:

I meant McCain is "stubborn and stupid" about the Iraq war... I didn't mean overall.
But since the war is such a obvious, strategic disaster, continued support of it is like making the statement: "I continue to believe that the Earth is flat". It's also true that now we're stuck and we can't just pack-up and leave.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:46:

"jh816 says on Friday February 22nd, 2008 9:04:

I think the NY times article is a non-issue."

Maybe, wishful thinking. I wonder if they would run that without any substantiation.

But, brings back memories of Lincoln Savings and the Keating 5, or was that all that press coverage unsubstantiated?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-c...

Or was that when “he learned from mistakes in the past"?

" . . being attacked by the NYT is considered by many conservatives as a badge of honor", certainly something to be proud of.

Seems that some people think "everybody's outa step but me".

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NJ C Rep says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:50:

Ever since 2000, McCain and Bush have been odds on a varietry of issues. contrary to the nonsense that Bush and McCain are the same. They have a very chilly relationship. There are issues they agree on such as immgration reform, Iraq and abortion and issue they do not such as perscription drugs, spending, judicial nominations and taxes. If John McCain would have been a clone of Bush, then the nomination would have been handed to him. Instead John McCain was attaceked by alot of Bush allies in the primaries. The Talk Radio host who helped Bush get elected weer attackink McCain the whole way thru.

The comment of a hundred years needs to be put into proper context. McCain view is that we have to stay in Iraq until we are not wanted and until the government in Iraq is able to protect it's own citizens. Soemoen asked him on why a timeline would not work. McCain said as long as it takes to acheived the above stated goals. The person who asked him said, 5 years? 10 years? McCain said 100 years if it takes that long. He went on further to explain we have a military presence in South Korea and Japan and that troop presence does not measure sucess, only the preservation of peace.

Calling McCain the same thing as Bush is basically comparing Uribe to Samper & Pastrana in reference to the FARC or ELN...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Feb 22, 2008, 09:50:

Simon says on Feb 22, 2008, 10:07:

CG,

All they say about Colombia is that they're looking into what the Colombian government is doing to prosecute the union members' killings in order to decide on the FTA's approval. Other than that, I doubt they know much about Colombia, other than the hackneyed stereotypes.

"Just an honest, decent Colombian trying to do the right thing."--Simon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NJ C Rep says on Feb 22, 2008, 10:10:

Yes...

McCain: Will support Free trade and Plan Colombia extension. I am not 100% on teh war on drugs but I am certain that we would maintain the military aspexcts in relations to Colombia while trying to reduce demand in the US. His wife was addicted to pain killers so I have to check his views on rehabilitation programs.

Obama: More than likely he will be against free trade without major revisions. He voted for Free trade with Peru but is against it in regards to Colombia. If the bill came up before election time, he may vote for it but he needs to be oppsoed to it to carry favor with organized labor in the US. As far as Plan Colombia goes, I am sure you will see great reduction in military aid. You may see that replaced with differences on the diplomatic front to offer support to Colombia. As far as drugs go, I think you will see a vastly difference in philosophy in dealing with rehabilitation and criminalzation in the US.

Clinton: This is a wild card because she would be more progressively minded than Bill Clinton was. I have the sense that she will be a hybrid of the McCain and Obama's posistions. I think she would accept a free trade deal with revisions faster than Obama and continue some kind of Plan Colombia. As far as curbing demand in the US goes, I would expect her to mirror Bill Clinton's policies.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 22, 2008, 10:18:

tomtom33: That is because history is written by assassins (stolen from the Official Story, a movie about another government that was full of B$).

Or maybe Peter Kornblugh (author of the Pinochet File) will shift his focus from Latin America and write the Iraq file. But I am sure that there will be plenty of at $$ kissers that will be all to happy to write hagiographical accounts of the Bush presidency. The Republicans will probably try to canonize him like they have so intently with Reagan.

It blows me away that anyone can view Bush in a positive light years after he has been exposed not only for being inept but also for being a bald-faced liar. Throughout all of the drumbeating for war there were plenty of credible intellectuals and officials throughout the world (and that includes the US) condemning the doctored up "facts" presented by the war boys in D.C. One only has to look at news coverage (which of course the average american does not do) in the years directly before 9/11 to see what offcials like Powell were saying about Iraq's capabilities and compare it to what was being said post-9/11 to see what some people would call glaring contradicitions. Me, I call them lies. In addition, all of the head-hunting and character assassination that went on, the fact that anyone who questioned the credibility of the evidence was labled 'anti-american" or a supporter of terrorism (what a gorgeous tactic!), it should have been quite obvious what the administration was up to. In my mind Bush and his administration have not come close to receiving the amount of honest criticism that they deserve.

aztec, give me a break. Pete is absolutely right. Women were falling all over Clinton. Do you really think he had to exploit some overweight intern to get action? And if we want to condemn politicians for infidelities the list is enormous.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo (Moderator) (Trustee board) (☼Travelguide writer) says on Feb 22, 2008, 10:20:

NJ C Rep says on Feb 22, 2008, 10:32:

To say that Bush lied about the capabilities of Iraq in regards to nuclear poliferation, you would have to say that Clinton, Britian, IAEA, UN, The Security Council, Russia, France and basically the entire world lied. What this showed is our inabilitie to rather strong intelligence in a conflict that we are not prepared for. In the US, we have been conditioned by the Cold War and a James Bond approach to espianoge. As I recalled, very few people questioend the evidence that was being provided but didn't think that a military response was wararnted. We knew they had a program, we knew that the embargo made it difficult to resume the program to the level it was in the 1980's before the Gulf war. We knew he already had biological capabilities and missle capability to reach 1000 miles. Our posistion was that he needed do demonstrate transparency into those programs and failure to do so had consequences.

There were 12 major reasons why Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power and nucl;ear poliferation was one of them. Our failure to understand Hussein's resistance to providing transparency into nuclear poliferation does not negate the other major reasons. It was a mistake to leave him in power in 1991.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

nueva york bombero says on Feb 22, 2008, 10:43:

Vegas is wrong then.... McCain is taking it..... watch!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NJ C Rep says on Feb 22, 2008, 10:53:

Can I get in on this bet?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

nueva york bombero says on Feb 22, 2008, 11:01:

Absolutely!!! But one promise....
No talk of politics please! Or maybe a five minute rule, then we drink!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Feb 22, 2008, 11:16:

Interesting post LDW. I have many of the same questions that you articulated.

"You can not take the barrio out of the girl you really can't." Oneforamillion

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NJ C Rep says on Feb 22, 2008, 11:22:

Dea on the drinks... There is a fun cuban place in midtown by Colombus circle... Well worth it. Azcuar...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NJ C Rep says on Feb 22, 2008, 11:43:

Bush & Bush & Saud: I am a Republican but even I am not comfortable with the personal closeness that exixt between the families. I am not even going to the financial ties.

The Clintons and Saud: There are no obvious personal ties to the Saud family. I woudl guess that their investment profolio may show investments in the Gulf. I don'tthink that was a motive for Clinton's involvement in Kosovo or Bosnia. I think he did it because of the ethnic cleasing issue with no strong Russian president to deter him.

McCain and Saud: I do not believe that there are any busines ties and definetly no personal ties. McCain's money coems from beer distribution from his wife side. Not a hot seller in Saudi Arabia. I do beleiev that ehw ill maintain a similar relationship that previous presidents did with Saudi Arabia in general but I think he will be tougher on them should an issue arrise. That would put him in line with Reagan.

Obama & Saud: Yes... apostasy is punishable in some circles by death or imprissionate but if he was a Muslim as a minor, it was in Indonesia. At that time, Indonesia was not and is still not a strict muslim country. I do not think that you would see any apostasy if he was because it would be very hard to prove. If teh Catholic faith you have documentation up the ying yang but a Muslim needs only to pledge himself to Allah and the prophet. I have a feeling that he was not a muslim nor has any devotion to Saud. I don't know his investment portfolio that reaches out to saud but I don't thnk he has one that would be of any concern. On policy, I think he would change much except for reduced military aid.

Muslim Voters in the US: Before 9-11 they favored Bush in general and because of Cheney's belief in a Palastinian state and Clinton's pro Israel apperance. After 9-11, it is all about the PATRIOT ACT. Reoublicans lost soem support because some muslims felt targeted despite Bush's overatures to muslims. Iraqi-Americans may be more supportive of republicans but I am sure that many others are leaning Democratic.Since Obama is against teh patriot act as is, I would say the edge goes to him because McCain supports the act and doesn't seem interested in out reach at this time but that can change.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 22, 2008, 12:37:

I seem to recall things very differently and it has little to do with bias. I will gladly discuss the shortcomings of democrats as well.

Plenty of people questioned it and they were silenced or painted as a supporter of terrorism.

As far as evidence against the claims that were circulating after 9/11, here are the words of the administration itself:



So if you maintain that it was so well documented and believed beforehand that Iraq had such capabilities, were Powell and Rice lying right before 9/11 about Iraq not being the slightest threat. Or, as I believe, were they lying after 9/11 when they claimed that Iraq had WMDs?



There were several CIA officials that stepped down in protest and their criticism was known at the time even though it was under reported. And several people involved in the media have spoke about the pressure that they received when printing anything that countered the official line.

When you speak of bias, realize that I criticize anyone (democrat or republican) that abuses their position of power at the detriment of the people.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Feb 22, 2008, 13:05:

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?


Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?


Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . . ... Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in pr ayer five times a day.

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exis t. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.




Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we

should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.




They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.


And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our President?



You HAVE to be kidding?!


Obama even says if he wins the election, he will
be sworn in on the Quran (Koran)---not the Bible!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 22, 2008, 13:11:

Obama is a muslim, the media doesnt talkm about it, but he is muslim, he is far far left, Obama a bad choice.
McCain also a bad choice but i will hold my nose and vote for him.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 24, 2008, 13:47:

That is hilarious scotty...You maintain that Obama is a muslim and that he is far, far to the left. That my friend is an oxymoron. Keep discussing this topic please, you do the most damage to your own argument.

Since it is not acceptable to bash someone for their race anymore, I guess it has become acceptable to create lies about their religious background in order to damage their reputation. Break out the white sheets boys! Let the fear roll.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Feb 24, 2008, 23:55:

you know Hillary cant be counted out yet, here and Obama are very close in delegates and votes. she could take it. but i dont really care i think the Dems are in trouble Billary and Obama are fighting and now Nader shows up...ha !this should be good.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 25, 2008, 12:39:

Trust me, the Dems are not in trouble. Even if the republicans somehow found a way to resurrect that sacred cow Ronnie Reagan they still would have no chance in this election.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 25, 2008, 16:39:

Seems to me if the dems had ANY candidate that was not a woman or a black man, they would win in a cake walk.

But they might just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with their bad timing. Again.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 25, 2008, 16:53:

Wow, racist and sexist...impressive.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 25, 2008, 19:47:

uhm, let me see if I can explain this to you...

I believe the US public won't yet vote for a woman or a black president.

And by your stellar logic that make ME sexist and racist?

Please tell me you are not a school teacher...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 25, 2008, 22:16:

I'd say your comment reflects where you are at a lot more than where the US public is at...but if you want to maintain that the US public is racist and sexist I will let you. And to a certain degree I agree: in the sense that a black man or a female has a much steeper hill to climb to reach the presidency. However, it does not matter. Either could walk it backwards and get there before McCain.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Feb 25, 2008, 22:20:

If he loses, you can all post this in my face later:

Obama is going to be the next president.

traveling hopefully is always better than arriving

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 25, 2008, 23:18:

Look pod, I am probably being a little hard on you. I just disagree about the dems needing a white male.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 26, 2008, 03:57:

"I'd say your comment reflects where you are at a lot more than where the US public is at..."

and once again you show your utter lack of ability to reason or think clearly.

I have repeatedly stated here that I an a HUGE fan of Maggie Thatcher, just for example.

I am an avowed individualist, meaning I judge people, not groups, unlike you.

As for the US public, yup I do think a lot (not all by any stretch) are racist and sexist, even if they don't realize it.

But that's not the whole story either, much as you'd like to pretend it is.

I'm saying the combination of a black man (for example) who is pretty far left and may not share the same religious views as most americans, will be tough to elect. Race (or sex in Hillary's case) is only part of the equation.

My point is that the dems could lose this election, when it should be a cakewalk, although maybe they should be given credit for taking the big risk.

And maybe one of them will win, but it shouldn't even be in doubt.

I do admire doing what's right instead of what's popular, and that works out in the long term, so we'll see.

It does remind me of the second Bush election, when all the pundits predicted Bush would get slaughtered...the ultra conservatives had another idea. You think those people will vote for the Obama 'cause McCain is too liberal? I don't think so.

(However, I am not in the US and am not reading much about this, so I could be way off, maybe the US public is ready, I'd go with the trend and say no though)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 26, 2008, 04:58:

huskie: I started my comment with a quotation from the other poster, not sure why you are confused

apartheid? south africa? huh???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 26, 2008, 08:51:

Huskie: "Just curious, what makes you think Obama would be such a great choice for president? What are his issues and why do you think he is so "popular"? How long has he been in politics? This may sound a bit overstated but again, do you really think with his experience he will be able to lead a country as great as ours specially if he is little if barely known around the world? Now a days, you need to mend a lot of mistakes brought by other administrations and IMHO he is not there yet. He should wait for a few more years, he still young, and he should learn a bit more before he takes on such a difficult task. Peace begings at home."

All of your points are valid and worded in a way where there can be a discussion and a debate. I do not have time to get into this now, but I've not sworn allegiance to anyone yet. I was simply sounding off because I think a lot of the criticism is unwarranted. Your points are much more valid than whether or not he wore a pin or a muslim outfit, etc. While those topics may deserve attention as well, I disagree with the manner that it has been handled by some on this site.

pod: sorry for typecasting you in a role that was probably undeserving.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 26, 2008, 16:24:

"probably" ???

jeje ok all is forgiven : )

Seriously, I kind of hope that Obama wins, I'd be very surprised, but it would show that people are not the sheep that i think they are.

Having said that. if Obama is as far left as I hear he is, that will be bad news for the US economy.

Hard to see how much worse he could be than Bush though. At least Obama will give tax and spenders a bad name instead of supposed free market capitalists.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 26, 2008, 18:17:

cool, I might have to support him just based on that

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 27, 2008, 19:59:

For the first time last night I decided to see what McCain, Clinton and Obama were all about, and learned several things:

1) I hope OBAMA becomes president. It's about time that the US has a black president. He is well-spoken and eloquent, and I think he would be the best as the face of the States.

2) Apparently Obama is mobilizing the black vote, something that has never before been achieved in US presidential election history. It comes down to the Southern Baptists vs. the Midwest Christians... and the South should win, therefore Obama should win.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 28, 2008, 05:28:

but manINred, what do these guys stand for? I don't know much about them either, and am too lazy to look it up.

Help me out!

Big government? small? tax and spend? fiscally conservative? socially liberal? welfare statists? Big business is bad? All business is bad? Free trade? Free markets? Isolationists? Abortion?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 28, 2008, 13:12:

From what I understand, he wants to expand the role of the state somewhat, which I think is necessary in the US right now. Obviously to do this he will need to increase taxes.

To add to my understanding, he wants to get insurance for the millions currently without health insurance (much-needed) and he is pro-abortion, anti-gay marriage (but pro-civil union, much like in the UK).

Those, in my opinion, are all good things. I have been reading that he is fairly ambiguous on many issues, but then again, most politicians are.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Feb 28, 2008, 13:15:

Yeah but Huskie, Canada isn't all that important. I'm sure he'll learn that Canada has a PM, not that it matters much. He'll deal with our prime minister, not our head of state. In fact, I think him and Mr. Harper would get along well!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

scotty says on Mar 1, 2008, 00:59:

Obama is popular because he is untouchable, the media wont touch him, McCain wont touch him, no one will question him, he has a free ride.

Get Rhythm, when you got the blues. Johnny Cash

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Apr 22, 2008, 11:13:

whos gonna win today in penn? obama or hillary?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:22:

Found in a Newspaper from Holland this week...................

"We in Holland cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Apr 22, 2008, 20:34:

I was on the fence but that decides it for me. Free beer rebates.

traveling hopefully is always better than arriving

0 funny, 0 helpful.

travelingirl says on Apr 22, 2008, 20:48:

One of my favorite quotes as of lately:
"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain." -Thomas Sowell

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Apr 22, 2008, 21:02:

funny, but that is his only hope, that the others are so scary. Someone in Colombia asked me who I liked, in the race, and I said "nobody, but I will likely vote for McCain.
She didn't know who that was, said that in Colombia, in the news, they only thought that the race was between Hillary and Obama.

traveling hopefully is always better than arriving

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Apr 22, 2008, 21:03:

after watching hillary win today and continue this democratic battle i can see more then ever mcain winning.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Apr 22, 2008, 23:49:

...and, no one thought a republican could win, just about 6 or 8 months ago.

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Apr 23, 2008, 08:56:

i said months ago that mccain would be our next prez, and still believe it.

thank god, there's a huge "anyone but hillary" contingent out there. she's unelectable vs. anyone who appears even vaguely honorable, which mccain does, true or not.

obama is charismatic, bright, articulate - but too green, and too black, for this election cycle. if mccain's health falters, or he doesn't get us out of iraq, obama will be the man in 2012. he'll have had time to build his base, and clear up these nagging perception problems....

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dan says on Apr 23, 2008, 08:59:

For the Reps... Once the others knew they were not getting it, McCain has just been sitting back... What does he have to fight for right now? I'll vote for him.

Obama/Hillary crap is annoying as hell. They're both fighting off of each other trying to make sure that they get their ticket to the White House. Obama, I can see him as president if he makes it but I'm still not going to vote for him... Hillary on the other hand has had her time in the White House, she doesn't need to screw things up any more than it is now.

God Bless America!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Apr 23, 2008, 09:16:

In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value
evaporate
(stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollar
s;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!


Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work
with
what's handed to him.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Apr 23, 2008, 09:21:

Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these
statistics
enlightening and amazing.
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250


Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates


It is amazing how many people who fall into the categories above think
Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If
Obama or Hillary are elected,they both say they will repeal the Bush tax
cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't
wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman;
you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what
happened.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dan says on Apr 23, 2008, 09:35:

I've seen the tax difference between the two... People tend to make stupid mistakes over and over again.
It happens throughout history.

God Bless America!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MitchAlvarez says on Apr 23, 2008, 09:35:

if the democrats loose this years presidential election they are the biggest fools ever.

the presidents approval rating is at the lowest its been in a longgggggg time.

the republican party is divided wether or not to support mcain who now has to bite his lip and kiss ass to all conservatives.

the war was a disaster for the republican party and their agenda.

and all the other shit that really just came with bush and his hunter vp.

if hillary and obama drop the ball for their party because they wanna keep fighting this election will hurt the party for a very long time.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dan says on Apr 23, 2008, 14:27:

In that case, let 'em keep fighting. I'm not all that fond of the Dems to begin with.

God Bless America!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Apr 25, 2008, 10:19:

"We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.


On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer . . . and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.


On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with big tits who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Apr 25, 2008, 10:20:

Here is one of the better ideas. Let's all get behind this
one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There are less than eight months until the election, an election that
will decide the next President of the United States. The person elected
will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the
Republicans. To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together
and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice. It's
time that we all came together, Democrats and Republicans alike.

If you support the policies and character of John McCain, please drive
with your headlights on during the day.

If you support Obama or Hillary, please drive with your headlights off
at night.

0 funny, 0 helpful.