US Elections 2008

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Mentar

This whole "guilt by association" ploy is BS, plain and simple. It's the tool of the fearmongers, for the uninformed. If you can't manage to form an opinion on what the CANDIDATE says, and you really go to the "ooooh, his pastor is an antiamerican racist, so this must be a really scary person" logic, you're quite oblivious.

You are saying it is important what the candidate says. Isn't the concerns surrounding Obama is about what he really says? One day supporting the pastor, and the next day leaving him behind because of what he heard him say over the years. It is not like the pastor has changed over the years. In the best case, he should have gotten better, so the past preachings must be even worse. As long as you are okay with this, and you are also okay with what the similar things Clintons and Mccain have done over the years, then, you are right, this matters should not mean a lot for you.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

here is the thing, i don't believed anything a politican say, be it Clinton, McCain or Obama. What they say goes in one ear and out the other. What i look at is thier past record and thier associates (past and present).

You don't have to BELIEVE what they say, you can judge people on WHAT they say and HOW they say it. Example: When this race started, I was neutral towards Clinton. Over the time of the campaign, I picked up alot of details from what she said and did which caused me to dislike her more and more. In the end, I am fairly certain that I have a pretty complete picture of her character, and based on that I'd make my pick. Same for all other politicians.

Again, it's not about BELIEVING what they say. It's about DEALING with what they say.

which is one of the major reasons i never got Obama Change Mantra. Since it is obvious he can't make any change in the washington culture as president because the president of the US doesn't have that kind of power.

Spoken like a true cynic. I'm more optimistic. There ARE things where he can make significant changes. Like for example banning professional lobbyist donations for his own campaign (he did that) and now for the DNC too (he did that yesterday). It's a small change, but a change nevertheless. If you claim that no relevant change whatsoever is possible, then why are you even voting?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Mentar

You don't have to BELIEVE what they say, you can judge people on WHAT they say and HOW they say it. Example: When this race started, I was neutral towards Clinton. Over the time of the campaign, I picked up alot of details from what she said and did which caused me to dislike her more and more. In the end, I am fairly certain that I have a pretty complete picture of her character, and based on that I'd make my pick. Same for all other politicians.

Again, it's not about BELIEVING what they say. It's about DEALING with what they say.



Spoken like a true cynic. I'm more optimistic. There ARE things where he can make significant changes. Like for example banning professional lobbyist donations for his own campaign (he did that) and now for the DNC too (he did that yesterday). It's a small change, but a change nevertheless. If you claim that no relevant change whatsoever is possible, then why are you even voting?

i haven't read the full story but the banning of Lobbyist donation should only apply to his own presidential campaign. Members of congress would throw him out a window if he tries to stop form taking lobbist donations.

As for why i am voting, i am voting for my own interest.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Funny that you'd say that. It very aptly describes the America of two Bush terms, and McCain is running for a continuation of these disastrous policies. The probability of Barack making things worse than this is infinitesimal.

Wrecking the US economy (protectionism), raising food prices (biofuel subsidies), and foreign fiascos ("Talk" with Iran/DPRK) are the perfect way to make things worse.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i haven't read the full story but the banning of Lobbyist donation should only apply to his own presidential campaign. Members of congress would throw him out a window if he tries to stop form taking lobbist donations.

Nobody's talking about "members of congress", we're talking about his campaign and the DNC. I'm no American, but your lobbying system looks very much like institutionalized corruption to me. So if his effort would encourage even only a few congress members to think twice about it, it would already be a worthwhile change.

As for why i am voting, i am voting for my own interest.

*shrug* fair enough, I guess. But at the same time, a bit pitiful.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Wrecking the US economy (protectionism), raising food prices (biofuel subsidies), and foreign fiascos ("Talk" with Iran/DPRK) are the perfect way to make things worse.

Wrecking the US economy (via ridiculous tax breaks and an unnecessary prolonged war of choice), raising food prices (as result of the inflationary pressure, bolstered by the dollar collapse) and foreign fiascos (the collapse of American standing and soft power in the middle east, the rise of Iran, Al Qaeda in Iraq and particularly Hamas in palestine and Hezbollah in Syria) are nearly impossible to top.

Tip: If you're crashing up your car again and again by smashing it against a tree, wishing to fell it this way, you can declare it your holy duty never to surrender and keep it up. Or you can drive around it, open your trunk, get out a saw and go to work with it instead. The ridiculous confrontational stance Bush promoted is already considered America's "Strategic Blunder of Historical Proportions" (General Sanchez, Commander of America's Ground Forces in Iraq 2003-2004).

It would be wise to look for a change of course.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Mentar

It would be wise to look for a change of course.

If that change would turn things around, that is.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Mentar

It would be wise to look for a change of course.

Whoever is selected, he is expected to make some changes. Instead of looking at just the word change, isn't it better to look at how to achieve that change? Till now not much happened in that aspect.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

If that change would turn things around, that is.

So because you don't believe in a hope to change you will willing to support someone who will guarantee to make things worse?

We may not have any proof that Obama is going to do what he promises, but the opposition has proven to be a disaster.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

So because you don't believe in a hope to change you will willing to support someone who will guarantee to make things worse?

I don't believe Obama's "Change" will do anything except make things EVEN worse than it is. That's why I would go for McCain to at least keep things "stable". That's my opinion.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Nobody's talking about "members of congress", we're talking about his campaign and the DNC. I'm no American, but your lobbying system looks very much like institutionalized corruption to me. So if his effort would encourage even only a few congress members to think twice about it, it would already be a worthwhile change.



*shrug* fair enough, I guess. But at the same time, a bit pitiful.

Why pitiful? People do tend to vote for thier own interest.

[N-Bomb]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I don't believe Obama's "Change" will do anything except make things EVEN worse than it is. That's why I would go for McCain to at least keep things "stable". That's my opinion.

I dunno what you said, but I'm pretty sure I just heard "I'm afraid."

Lemme put it this in a way which may be over many people's heads here - If you never ask her out on a date, you'll never know if she would've said yes.

The time for safely hiding behind old policies and ideas is past, it's time to take a few risks and see if we can't come out ahead!

YEAAAARRRGHH!

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

I dunno what you said, but I'm pretty sure I just heard "I'm afraid."

Lemme put it this in a way which may be over many people's heads here - If you never ask her out on a date, you'll never know if she would've said yes.

The time for safely hiding behind old policies and ideas is past, it's time to take a few risks and see if we can't come out ahead!

YEAAAARRRGHH!

It's not a problem of being afraid of new things. It's a problem of knowing that Obama is following what Kennedy and Carter has done, which resulted in a devestation of the US. Obama is just repackaging old Democrat policies, except possibly for health care (and couldn't the "Great Society" agenda be a forerunner?)


In short: Obama isn't "Hopeful Change", it's "Democrat Rerun".

[yezhanquan]

I don't respect Kennedy primarily because he hid his health issues. Policy-wise, he was in office for a relatively short period of time. Won't go into the "what-if" debates.

Ironically, it took Carter a term in the White House for him to be able to contribute more outside the House. Definitely one of those Presidents who are better remembered for being ex-president than president.

I think by now, there is really little difference between "Democratic" and "Republican" policies. Each side has copied something from the other.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

It's not a problem of being afraid of new things. It's a problem of knowing that Obama is following what Kennedy and Carter has done, which resulted in a devestation of the US. Obama is just repackaging old Democrat policies, except possibly for health care (and couldn't the "Great Society" agenda be a forerunner?)


In short: Obama isn't "Hopeful Change", it's "Democrat Rerun".

That may be true, but does just because those presedents you mentioned failed to implement change mean that Obama will too? If you want comparisons, he has also been compared to Regan in the fact both opened a new door for politics calling for change. If i know my history, Ragan was considered a good president. Hes also been compared to Trudeau from Canada (if any of you know who he is) who radically changed the face to Canada and is considered one of , if not the best prime ministers to ever lead Canada.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

If i know my history, Ragan was considered a good president. Hes also been compared to Trudeau from Canada (if any of you know who he is) who radically changed the face to Canada and is considered one of , if not the best prime ministers to ever lead Canada.

You do know that Reagon supported tax cuts even more than Bush ever did, right?


I'm thinking McCain is Reagon Jr, while Obama is Carter Jr.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

You do know that Reagon supported tax cuts even more than Bush ever did, right?


I'm thinking McCain is Reagon Jr, while Obama is Carter Jr.

Maccain is regan junior? What idication gives you that idea? We've seen maccain in action and hes nothing more than bush jr. jr.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

Maccain is regan junior? What idication gives you that idea? We've seen maccain in action and hes nothing more than bush jr. jr.

Yes, but then, Bush Jr was a pitiful version of Reagon. I'm hoping that McCain can follow the Cowboy's path more closely.



Meanwhile, there are various indicators that Clinton will NOT be Obama's VP. Now that's good news.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Yes, but then, Bush Jr was a pitiful version of Reagon. I'm hoping that McCain can follow the Cowboy's path more closely.

Wha-why?? Let me ask you up front, do you have a bias against anyone who will try to be diplomatic with North Korea?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Wha-why?? Let me ask you up front, do you have a bias against anyone who will try to be diplomatic with North Korea?

I have a bias against someone who thinks only a bit of talking will solve everything. Obama will pretty much butter up DPRK like how Kim and Roh did in the past 10 years.