2008-04-30, 23:14 | Link #401 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
Which is exactly what I said. GWB doesn't care about the polls and refuses to change even when running the country into the ground because he believes in the neocon manifesto. I get the feeling that Obama also believes in what he says. He comes across as a sincere person, and I think that even if the things he believes in became unpopular he would still try to do them. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, does not believe. She is not sincere. She will support the war when it is popular, but bash it when it becomes unpopular. She would support universal health care if it is popular, but forget about it if it becomes unpopular. I think that, right now, that is a good thing. I want a president who does not have their own manifesto. I want a president who will switch positions if their old one becomes unpopular. I want a vain, selfish president who will steal other people's ideas and call them their own, and abandon their old ideas. I'm sick of having a president who believes in some ideal, and goes for it regardless of the cost or popularity even while it is failing. |
|
2008-04-30, 23:27 | Link #402 | ||||||
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My conclusion on this man is that he is very angry and confused with society, so he channels this into an outrageous aggression to a point where his thoughts are pretty much anti-American. I realize what you're saying, there is most likely a why to what he thinks, but that's like justifying a killer because he was abused as a child. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||
2008-05-01, 00:16 | Link #403 | ||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
For your and my sake, I hope so. Don't fool yourself into thinking that what she says and does now, as a presidential candidate, will be the same things that she does as a president. Unfortunately, our current president has proven that it doesn't always work that way, as I'm sure that numerous other presidents before him have as well. Quote:
It doesn't matter, either way. Obama wasn't a member of the weathermen, and he wasn't supporting them from behind the scenes. As far as I know, Obama hasn't gone out to say that he really supported the actions of bombing infrastructure. Once again people seem to be expecting him to denounce and sever ties with people whom they deem to be a threat. I wouldn't do the same, myself, and thus I find it unreasonable to expect Obama to "or else he'd be a bad president." Quote:
Quote:
I've mentioned it on these forums before, but there was a very interesting documentary performed by CBS which examined this. They took two men, both roughly the same age, both programmers, both glasses-wearing, both single, both friends, and then followed their experiences separately. One was African American, the other was Caucasian. They went through a number of scenarios with hidden cameras, and the differences in treatment were astounding. The same shopkeeper who eagerly approached the Caucasian and offered friendly banter completely ignored the African American man; while walking out late at night, the police stopped the African American man randomly but ignored the Caucasian man; the African American man was told that all apartments were filled just moments after the Caucasian man had been told that there were plenty of vacancies... and so on. The reporting was done in what could be called an area of the South, but as a "final test" they returned to New York city and had both men hail a cab. Even though the African American man was a few feet in front of the Caucasian man, the cab drove right past him and stopped in front of the Caucasian. If I were treated that way and noticed that I was being singled out and treated worse than other people I'd be pretty upset, too. The idea that the reverand is an America hater just seems off to me. He was in the military for six years voluntarily (longer than Cheney or Bush), which doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't hate America, but certainly seems like an activity that someone who hates the country would avoid. His statements reflect a lot of frustrations with the way that the system is working. A killer's childhood abuse doesn't clear him of the crimes he has committed, but it sheds light on why he did what he did. Instead of calling him "evil" you realize that he is psychologically unwell. I believe a similar view can arise here: the reverand is not an America hater, but someone who is very frustrated with the way things are going. Whether you agree or disagree with his views, realize why he says what he does rather than just branding him with incendiary terms. This requires more than just understanding the words that he's saying - you need to understand his background, and the experiences that he faces day to day as an African American man. Edit in: I just went to the stoptheaclu.org site (where stoptheaclu.com is derived from), and I don't like them. First tip-off: they have an image of the American flag with a Cross on their main site. First indication that they're a bunch of uber-Christians who want to push Christianity on all of us, and damn us for being different. Second indication: the guy who founded the site specialized in Bible studies. Third: the "offenses" that they've suffered because of the ACLU include things like fighting to allow abortion, "threats to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and our money," fighting for homosexual marriage, "defending terrorists at Guantanamo Bay" (oh noes, they're terrorists, they're not allowed to have the freedoms that America is based on)... it doesn't discredit the site you linked to, but I'm not a fan of organizations like those at all.
__________________
Last edited by Ledgem; 2008-05-01 at 00:27. |
||||
2008-05-01, 01:08 | Link #404 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Remember how the masses wanted to invade Iraq? There are two different things here. One is knowing to admit when you are actually wrong. The other is switching sides just to stay popular. The former is the quality a president needs. |
||
2008-05-01, 01:18 | Link #405 | |||
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would often wonder if teaching about racism actually induces experiences like what you described with the white and black guy. Like would a person naturally hate black people if you never said anything about people hating them for their skin color? Subconsciously it puts a message in people's heads that other races are weird? Well anyways before I get OT, yeah, racism is still very prevalent. Quote:
P.S. It has been entertaining to converse with you Ledgem, in a good way .
__________________
|
|||
2008-05-07, 00:43 | Link #406 |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Surprised nobody mentioned this yet. It would seem that Clinton beat Obama in Indiana (but it was very, very close; 51% for Clinton and 49% for Obama), and Obama beat Clinton in North Carolina (56% to 42% - Yahoo's math seems to be off). It was nice to see that Obama is focusing on the big picture, as he made a remark that "This primary season may not be over, but when it is, we will have to remember who we are as Democrats ... because we all agree that at this defining moment in history — a moment when we're facing two wars, an economy in turmoil, a planet in peril — we can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term."
It's been rather interesting, as it seems that Obama and Clinton have, for better or for worse, been getting nearly all of the political press coverage. You can find coverage on McCain, but even on "big issue" topics he seems to barely get a mention. Aside from that issue, does anyone want to discuss the debates over suspending the tax on gas? I was initially inclined to agree with Obama that a temporary suspension won't really do too much and is also a temporary fix that won't solve a larger issue, but I was really miffed when I read something that a Clinton aid said regarding it. I can't find the article anymore, but a section of it mentioned how some hundred+ economists, including four Nobel Prize winners (they have that for economics?) had signed a statement which said that suspending the gas tax wouldn't do anything and was a bad idea. When a Clinton aid was pressed to respond to whether they had found any economists to support their stance that a temporary suspension would be a good thing, she said something along the lines of 'we're not hunting for economists to support us, we're doing what's best for the people.' I appreciate that last bit, but how is ignoring the advice of experts doing what's best for the people? It's been said before, but a president isn't expected to know everything on their own. That's what their aids and other experts are for. If they had a slew of economists who could say that it was a good idea and had some solid proof to back it, then I'd say that's great. As it stands, it seems like they're just doing what they want and hoping that things go the way that they hope. Bad leadership.
__________________
|
2008-05-07, 00:48 | Link #407 |
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 35
|
Clinton beat Obama in Indiana? OMFG, that's where I live!! I am very afraid. Damn Hoosiers.
And I'm still not sure who the heck I'm gonna vote for. However, one thing is for certain: I pray to God Obama gets the Democratic spot. I don't even want to consider the remote chance that Clinton gets elected as President. In all honesty, the thought scares me to death. I know I'd defnitely vote Obama if given the choice, but I still want to know more about McCain. The lack of press coverage for the Republicans annoys me. In order to make an informed decision, I gotta know both sides, but how can I know both sides when the media doesnt cover one half? Looking up everything on the internet can only go so far.
__________________
|
2008-05-07, 01:02 | Link #408 | |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
The economy thing is an iffy issue for me because I know that the economy was good under Bill and I am inclined to think that Hilary would be good with economics, so I would think tax cuts would do good. On the other hand with these economists saying otherwise, I am at a loss. But hey, economists have definitely been wrong in the past....
__________________
|
|
2008-05-07, 02:17 | Link #409 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Suspending the gas tax will simply have the following effects:
1) Interstate and state roads maintenance will go into the red or go undone. 2) The basic price will rise in response to extra demand. 3) This saves about $4/tank. Great bribe, you two wankers ... O.o Of course, people are waving the ANWR drill flag again (10yrs lag before about two years of fuel). Barak is right - reducing demand through improvements to infrastructure and efficiencies in use will save a LOT more and reduce fuel dependency. Hell, walking around and trout-whacking people who don't turn off their engines while waiting in line for gas will save an amazing amount of fuel.
__________________
|
2008-05-07, 03:05 | Link #411 | |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Trust me, I held on to my Radical Green Leftist ideals for quite a while, but I gave up when it's clear I'm either driving myself or somebody else will do it for me all the time. So, like, if we get your kind of tax, America's going to see a Revolution. No sir, we won't take it any other way. Give me my gas or give me death Of course, that doesn't excuse the oversized monsters some people seem to like. |
|
2008-05-07, 03:07 | Link #412 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
I think Americans are stupendously unaware of the price of gasoline anywhere else on the planet (or the infrastructure those gas taxes support in other countries).
__________________
|
2008-05-07, 04:25 | Link #413 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The real interesting part is, why did Lake County wait so long for releasing results. It seemed like they wanted the eyes of the country on them like the old political trick where you hold the cards in the big cities till the last moment. What is getting really scary is the split in the democratic party is getting larger and larger, but everyone seems to dismiss it. The number of voters who voted for Clinton, but will vote for McCain if she loses has increased to nearly 1/3rd. The scariest part is the opinions of some of these people. The fark threads were pasting some of the stuff they were saying. They are absolutely convinced everything involving positives for Obama is a conspiracy and many of the negative stories for Clinton to hit the mass media are 'fake information leaked by Obama operatives'. And for a random link fun, here is Keith Olbermann's description of the Clinton's guidelines for who counts. It is absolutely hilarious to hear what basically Clinton has said what matters. And for random fact check fun, I believe it was Clinton's campaign manager claimed that Clinton was winning in Florida over McCain. Actual polling holds that the two are statistically tied. |
||||
2008-05-07, 06:02 | Link #414 | |||
Cutengu
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Shameimaru's lap
|
Clinton's campaign is essentially dead.
Slate covers why pretty well Choice snippets: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2008-05-07, 12:30 | Link #415 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Then again, we easily drove from the Russian border to near the German border in Poland. As for Holland, we were bicycling around there It's mostly flat land and they have bike lanes on their highways, it was totally amazing. Really neat to be able to hop on a bike in one city, go through some countryside (we just missed the tulip season, unfortunately), and then enter another city and bike around there. Can you do that in the US? I wish we could! Heck, I looked over the statistics on the new Tesla Roadster - it has a range of about 225 miles on a single charge. Great for regular drives and perhaps the East Coast (where a commute for me might be 80 miles per day), but that probably wouldn't even get me from Los Angeles to San Diego without worrying about running out of charge (distance between LA and SD is ~125 miles). The distances are greater, which makes setting up transport systems pretty difficult. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-05-07, 13:35 | Link #416 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
MSNBC suggested should she would drop out on 5/20, the Oregon/Kentucky primary. That is the day Obama is expected to wrap things up delegate wise. She would get her last hurrah in winning Kentucky and walk away "on top". Meanwhile Obama would win Oregon, get the majority of pledged delegates, and continue momentum. This above theory is likely reality because Clinton is likely going to take WV and KY, whether or not she is in the race. Montana, Puerto Rico and South Dakota are toss ups and everyone expects Obama to run away in Oregon. Before yesterday, the Huffington post was suggesting the so called "nuclear option." I would assume this is off the table now, but who knows. However, unless a shocker happens before Oregon, she cannot get the majority of pledged delegates (with or without Florida and Michigan). |
||
2008-05-07, 13:47 | Link #417 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-05-07, 13:58 | Link #418 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Aye... and then the oil companies (being responsible to their shareholders) will pass these additional costs (corporate taxes) along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
Basically, the idea is a political sham. (see bayoab's Illinois example).
__________________
|
2008-05-07, 17:27 | Link #419 |
~
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Age: 35
|
I'm surprised that the Democratic primaries have even been getting so much attention for the last two months. Anyone decent at math should have been able to figure out that Clinton had practically no chance of winning after Obama won 11 straight primaries and caucuses after Super Tuesday. Those wins were bigger than anything Clinton has been pulled off, with wins of 20-30% margins in many states, including Virginia which will be important in the general election.
It's also interesting to look out how some of the primary and caucus results are reported. Often a candidate will be deemed the winner of a state by just winning the popular vote when it's the delegates they receive that really matter. Most recently Guam was reported as a win for Obama when in fact the two candidates split the four delegates 2-2. In Texas, Clinton won the popular vote but because that state allocates one third of its delegates based off of a separate caucus Obama ended up winning 5 more delegates than her in that state overall. Clinton arguably didn't win a single state in January. The New Hampshire primary was so close that they tied in delegates (9-9). Clinton again won the popular vote in Nevada but because that state (and many other states I believe) allocate delegates to each county Obama received one more delegate than her (13-12). Michigan and Florida of course had their delegates stripped for voting before February 5th. So before Super Tuesday the results were actually three wins for Obama and one tie. It's like in the general election in November. It doesn't really matter who wins the popular vote, just who receives more than half of the electoral college votes. Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes but who ended up becoming President? Yeah, not him. It should also be noted that despite Obama's unfair "wins" and many caucus wins (where one vote counts a lot more), he is still beating Clinton in the overall popular vote, even with Michigan and Florida factored in. It will be very good for Obama if he can keep up his lead in the popular vote so that the Michigan and Florida delegates can actually be seated at the convention, as Florida at least will again be very important in the general election. |
2008-05-07, 18:04 | Link #420 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
1. small electoral votes 2. they are firmly Red States. Obama may win those states in primary but he won't win them in the General Election. 3. Name a big state that Obama won?
__________________
|
|
Tags |
debate, elections, politics, united_states |
Thread Tools | |
|
|