2008 Election

Page 2 of 6 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I think you are confusing WW1 with WW2. The vast majority of the United States was very pro-war, especially after Pearl Harbor.
    keep in mind the war in euopre had been on for a while and FDR had no chance of approval in the US till Pearl Harbor. Kinda interesting that whole event, but dont want to hijack my own thread with that.


  2. unsubbed. not another thread on politics with good ol boy cnorris.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329;
    I think your synopsis of Obama is short sighted and palin wrong. However, in contrast to your statements, we need someone who will escalate the conflict, and possibly futher enrage an area that is already at a boiling point, and all the while push for conflict in Iran and possibly elsewhere, which will then in turn kill more of an already lost generation? Sorry cant see how the war monger is the best choice....

    And reps.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    keep in mind the war in euopre had been on for a while and FDR had no chance of approval in the US till Pearl Harbor. Kinda interesting that whole event, but dont want to hijack my own thread with that.
    I was a history major, so while I can accept this current synopsis, the previous one was incorrect. What you said before was like saying that most Americans were against the war in Iraq before it started. You're bending historical facts to prove your points and that's not at all right.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I think you are confusing WW1 with WW2. The vast majority of the United States was very pro-war, especially after Pearl Harbor.
    Before WW2 (and Pearl Harbor) the majority of Americans favored an isolationist viewpoint. They were NOT in favor of entering WW2 due to economic hardship. He even acknowledge this in his "Arsenal of Democracy" speech in 1940 which he basically admitted that our goal was to supply Europe (which would ease economic pressure), not intervene. Churchill basically begged Roosevelt for a year to intervene and he did not until Pearl Harbor (which shifted public sentiment).

    There are several books covering the switch from isolationism to interventionism.


    So in other words, if Pearl Harbor never happened, Americans would probably be speaking German.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  6. Romney, Huckabee, and the rest of the Republicans, besides McCain, don't have a chance in hell. McCain will be able to put up quite a fight against the Democrats, but in the end, the Dems will be taking over the White House again. Clinton is losing a lot of support because of her big mouth and spiteful attitude. I didn't mind her much, up until I found out that she voted for the Iraq war, without knowing any details. She wants total control. She's very determined to get that. She just won't budge for anything or anybody. It's kinda scary. I think our country's been through enough since 2000. I do believe Obama is going to win the presidency and I will be voting for him, and may even be donating some money to his campaign. He has even won the support of several Repubs! Quite a few Repubs have their faith in him. He's young, healthy, extremely intelligent, has an optimistic outlook, has a very good agenda lined up, and seems like he's a guy who enjoys getting things done. McCain will put up a fight, though, but in the end, America will decide and hopefully the decision sticks this time, unlike the last election. I must admit that I do like Rudy Guiliani, but of course, he's no longer in the race and I wouldn't vote for him anyway. He seems to be the most liberal Repub, but he did help NYC through a lot, especially after 9/11.

    Just so all of you know, especially you Repub supporters; though I may disagree with those who vote Repub (only because I'm very knowledgable in the field of politics), I believe in your right to voice your opinion. I may not agree with it, but if you hear me out, then it's only fair and respectful that I hear you out as well. I'm a registered Independent, but support more liberal views than I do conservative ones. Therefore, most people would associate me as possessing Dem ideologies, however, we all stand on both sides of the fence. We all have conversative views, as well as liberal views. For example: I'm pro-choice, which would be labeled as a liberal/Dem view, however, I'm also against tightening up gun control, only because of our right to bear arms granted to us by the US Constition, which would be labeled as a conservative/Repub view.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I was a history major, so while I can accept this current synopsis, the previous one was incorrect. What you said before was like saying that most Americans were against the war in Iraq before it started. You're bending historical facts to prove your points and that's not at all right.

    Actually I am a history teacher so lets look at the facts. Polls prior to pearl harbor gave an approval under 20% for entrance into another european war. Keep in mind the country was struggling economically as the new deal was not the "big deal" it was thought to be and the US had just fought a few decades earlier in WWI. The only way FDR could get approval from the public and congress for the war was an attack on American soil. Look logically

  8. Quote Originally Posted by MuscleGuyinNY View Post
    I'm also against tightening up gun control, only because of our right to bear arms granted to us by the US Constition, which would be labeled as a conservative/Repub view.
    I am not trying ot hijack or change topics, but wanted to address this. The 2nd ammend. is not so cut and dry

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Before WW2 (and Pearl Harbor) the majority of Americans favored an isolationist viewpoint. They were NOT in favor of entering WW2 due to economic hardship. He even acknowledge this in his "Arsenal of Democracy" speech in 1940 which he basically admitted that our goal was to supply Europe (which would ease economic pressure), not intervene. Churchill basically begged Roosevelt for a year to intervene and he did not until Pearl Harbor (which shifted public sentiment).

    There are several books covering the switch from isolationism to interventionism.


    So in other words, if Pearl Harbor never happened, Americans would probably be speaking German.
    I'm not disputing this in any way. My point was in reference to after the Pearl Harbor attack.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Actually I am a history teacher so lets look at the facts. Polls prior to pearl harbor gave an approval under 20% for entrance into another european war. Keep in mind the country was struggling economically as the new deal was not the "big deal" it was thought to be and the US had just fought a few decades earlier in WWI. The only way FDR could get approval from the public and congress for the war was an attack on American soil. Look logically
    I am. Entrance into the second world war actually lifted our economy fully out of the Great Depression. You're right that their wasn't universal support for the war prior to Pearl Harbor, but that quickly changed in one day. That's something that cannot be disputed.

  11. Back on topic-

    If I were to vote for a democrat, then it would be Obama.

    -lesser of two evils.

    If I were to vote for a republican, then it would be McCain.

    -I firmly in heart believe that a man who has actually served in our nation's military has its best interest in mind. I hear alot of talk about people concerning the war, but almost none of it has come from anyone who has actually been there.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I am. Entrance into the second world war actually lifted our economy fully out of the Great Depression. You're right that their wasn't universal support for the war prior to Pearl Harbor, but that quickly changed in one day. That's something that cannot be disputed.
    so how does this relate to your earlier statement that I was responding to?

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    so how does this relate to your earlier statement that I was responding to?
    I think I confused your posts with firecross's. Anyhow, it just adds to it. I should have elaborated more initially.
  14. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by slow-mun View Post
    I hear alot of talk about people concerning the war, but almost none of it has come from anyone who has actually been there.
    And ****, almost nobody else alive has "been there" like McCain was. 5 years in the POW camp. I did a special project + report on it in 8th grade ( a lot of research work, a lot of reading) and its completely horrifying the sort of things they did.

    So if McCain were to ask to put some of our men in harms way, I'd have to say ok.
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  15. Just bc of McCains experience that does not mean that we should allow an escaltion of the war to the extent that Mccain wants. IMO he will be Bush +10, which is a bad, BAD thing

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Just bc of McCains experience that does not mean that we should allow an escaltion of the war to the extent that Mccain wants. IMO he will be Bush +10, which is a bad, BAD thing
    Bush +10? Wow, your lack of understanding of him does not surprise be given your irrational fear of him.

    McCain is hated... absolutely bitterly HATED by the far right because of many of his moderate positions.

    He has a different approach to the Iraq war than the democrats , but its an approach to resolve the conflict unlike Bush. Commit the troop levels and get it over with quickly and pull out under the correct, noble and intelligent cirumstances rather than cut and run leaving a complete disaster that will be equivalent to sweeping it under the rug for future generations to deal with.

    The reason has Iraq and the US dollar has been such a mess is because Bush lacked the clear vision McCain has from the beginning. You cant fund a war and cut taxes and run up the debt, you cant fight a war without enough troops.

    McCain will bring us a stabilized Iraq that we are able to hand off to the Iraqi military, not a mess for future generations to deal with. He will also keep nuclear weapons away from the most militarily active and unstable nation in the middle east. Iran wants nothing more than to rise to control the middle east. They want nothing more than to use nuclear weapons to force their hand against Europe and the US. Why do you think the Soviet Union and China, who both have a direct interest in a less powerful US and Europe, are so supportive of Iran? China and Russia are not interested in a Unipolar world with America being the only super power, despite the fact that fewer wars have gone on since the the fall of the Soviet Empire than any other equivalent time period in modern history.

    Is pathetic liberals are willing to trust the UN (an undisputed anti-military and anti-American organization) intelligence and roll the dice and assume Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon despite the fact every action and ever word coming out of their nation indicates the opposite. There may be a the lack of a smoking gun, but there sure is a carton of bullets and an NRA sign on the Iranian flag.

    And before you try and bring up the Iraq WMD intelligence issue, lets not forget Saddam actively wanted to appear to be a threat and in possession of WMD because of their bitter history with Iran.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post

    He has a different approach to the Iraq war than the democrats , but its an approach to resolve the conflict unlike Bush. Commit the troop levels and get it over with quickly and pull out under the correct, noble and intelligent cirumstances rather than cut and run leaving a complete disaster that will be equivalent to sweeping it under the rug for future generations to deal with.
    this lacks in any certainty. there is a choice here, and the american people were dupped into believing the WMD argument and the threat of Iraq, so there is no reason to continue to "commit" further young people who will come home in a bag

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    The reason has Iraq and the US dollar has been such a mess is because Bush lacked the clear vision McCain has from the beginning. You cant fund a war and cut taxes and run up the debt, you cant fight a war without enough troops.
    you also cant do it without the $, and due to the current administration we will not have that for a while. to be honest, when we have that money, our interests would be better served domestically

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    McCain will bring us a stabilized Iraq that we are able to hand off to the Iraqi military, not a mess for future generations to deal with. He will also keep nuclear weapons away from the most militarily active and unstable nation in the middle east. Iran wants nothing more than to rise to control the middle east. They want nothing more than to use nuclear weapons to force their hand against Europe and the US. Why do you think the Soviet Union and China, who both have a direct interest in a less powerful US and Europe, are so supportive of Iran? China and Russia are not interested in a Unipolar world with America being the only super power, despite the fact that fewer wars have gone on since the the fall of the Soviet Empire than any other equivalent time period in modern history.
    of course both china and russia want to be powers, hell they already are. we cannot be so ridiculous to believe it should only be the US, we have survived in the past with multiple world powers

    Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Is pathetic liberals are willing to trust the UN (an undisputed anti-military and anti-American organization) intelligence and roll the dice and assume Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon despite the fact every action and ever word coming out of their nation indicates the opposite. There may be a the lack of a smoking gun, but there sure is a carton of bullets and an NRA sign on the Iranian flag.

    And before you try and bring up the Iraq WMD intelligence issue, lets not forget Saddam actively wanted to appear to be a threat and in possession of WMD because of their bitter history with Iran.
    the major difference between us here is that there is no reason for the US to be globocop anymore. There comes a time when you want to develop and better yourselves as a nation and to do that you need a president who will help at home aside from abroad. You look at the disaster that this country has become under an administration thats only focal point is foreign policy (and they were horrible at that to say the least) We as a nation need balance and McCain will NOT bring that
  18. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    so there is no reason to continue to "commit" further young people who will come home in a bag
    comically, Bill Clinton had more than twice as many men die during his presidency than Bush has. easily available statistic.
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    Just bc of McCains experience that does not mean that we should allow an escaltion of the war to the extent that Mccain wants. IMO he will be Bush +10, which is a bad, BAD thing
    Of course the vast experience in military and foreign affairs of Hillary and Obama is better.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    this lacks in any certainty. there is a choice here, and the american people were dupped into believing the WMD argument and the threat of Iraq, so there is no reason to continue to "commit" further young people who will come home in a bag

    So were the intelligence agencies of almost every Western European power. What is even funnier is the vast amounts of people who will think either Clinton or Obama will actually change anything. We already hear how they both will keep troops in Iraq yet their rhetoric is anti-war.


    you also cant do it without the $, and due to the current administration we will not have that for a while. to be honest, when we have that money, our interests would be better served domestically
    This might be the biggest myth in the world, that the administration (any for that matter) has this much power over the economy. Sorry, Greenspan and his ridiculous post 90's policies had more to do with it. This was the same man (and fed bank) that faciliated the boom of the 90's (along wiht the internet). The fed controls the economy more so than any President does and its been the same man for almost 20 years (up until 2006).



    of course both china and russia want to be powers, hell they already are. we cannot be so ridiculous to believe it should only be the US, we have survived in the past with multiple world powers
    Obviously you didnt live through the majority of the Cold war.



    the major difference between us here is that there is no reason for the US to be globocop anymore.
    Naive.

    There comes a time when you want to develop and better yourselves as a nation and to do that you need a president who will help at home aside from abroad.
    January 18, 1999
    "Islamic terrorism" helps justify defense spending"

    "Desperate to fend off the Republican led impeachment process, President Clinton has agreed to an $124 billion increase in defense spending over seven years, thereby, jeopardizing his earlier commitments to education, social security, medicare, and programs for the poor."


    Sometimes, reality gets in the way. This also correlates to the economic issue as the majority of the surplus was because of Clinton cutting military budgets, not some grand economic plan. His "commitments to education, social security, medicare, and programs for the poor" were for the most part a collosal failure.

    You look at the disaster that this country has become under an administration thats only focal point is foreign policy (and they were horrible at that to say the least) We as a nation need balance and McCain will NOT bring that

    Funny because the extreme right hate him because he actually works with liberals and he appeals to many democrats. Seems you statement is quite wrong.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Of course the vast experience in military and foreign affairs of Hillary and Obama is better.
    I did not realize that military experience was a necessity for a president?

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So were the intelligence agencies of almost every Western European power. What is even funnier is the vast amounts of people who will think either Clinton or Obama will actually change anything. We already hear how they both will keep troops in Iraq yet their rhetoric is anti-war.
    both have said that they are leaving Iraq but not the area

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    This might be the biggest myth in the world, that the administration (any for that matter) has this much power over the economy. Sorry, Greenspan and his ridiculous post 90's policies had more to do with it. This was the same man (and fed bank) that faciliated the boom of the 90's (along wiht the internet). The fed controls the economy more so than any President does and its been the same man for almost 20 years (up until 2006).
    however, it is the drain of the war that has led to major economic issues. Speak with Sen Chuck Hagel



    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Obviously you didnt live through the majority of the Cold war.
    Yes I did





    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Naive.
    Does not have to be

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Sometimes, reality gets in the way. This also correlates to the economic issue as the majority of the surplus was because of Clinton cutting military budgets, not some grand economic plan. His "commitments to education, social security, medicare, and programs for the poor" were for the most part a collosal failure.
    I think that is is a tad biased, no?



    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Funny because the extreme right hate him because he actually works with liberals and he appeals to many democrats. Seems you statement is quite wrong.
    On certain issues. However his stance on the war is short sighted and very, very ultra conservative

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I did not realize that military experience was a necessity for a president?
    Yes, in a time of war where troops are abroad, it would be foolish to elect someone who has vast experience in that area.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yes, in a time of war where troops are abroad, it would be foolish to elect someone who has vast experience in that area.
    b/c he has experience in Vietnam means he is qualified as president?

    I totally forgot that during the Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton years we didnt have troops anywhere?

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    both have said that they are leaving Iraq but not the area
    Wrong..

    "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military."

    "At that debate Obama said that he could not guarantee that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Obama qualified that answer today, as he has in previous town halls in New Hampshire and Iowa, by saying that he would keep troops in Iraq for diplomatic, humanitarian and counterterrorism purposes."








    however, it is the drain of the war that has led to major economic issues. Speak with Sen Chuck Hagel

    Wrong. A housing bubble and suprime debt of the major financial institutions has caused ecenomic issues (along with European and Asian financials that invested in the US). The height of the war "2002-2005" showed record GDP and economic boom. The federal reserve hasn't dropped the fed funds rate in the last year because of the war. Get your facts straight.



    Yes I did
    You're 32. You didn't. The height of the Cold War was not the 80's and 90's.








    Does not have to be
    Thats your own problem, not mine.


    I think that is is a tad biased, no?
    Actually, no its not form a historical persepctive. Nobody said Bush fixed it nor improved it, but that Clinton's policies for the most part failed. In other words, more of the same because its not the President that determines economic policy for the most part.





    On certain issues. However his stance on the war is short sighted and very, very ultra conservative
    Funny, he held the same viewpoints as the Clinton administration pre war which we all know was a very, very, ultra conservative administration.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Of course the vast experience in military and foreign affairs of Hillary and Obama is better.


    I dont even know where to begin with Obama. His shallow rhetoric and empty words arent enough to make up for his inexperience, foolishness and radical left wing ideology. The man has absolutely no real accomplishments or experience compared with any single candidate running. But thats OK since he can deliver a poetic speech full of hopeful rhetorical poem like sentences that bleeding heards soak up all day.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    b/c he has experience in Vietnam means he is qualified as president?

    I totally forgot that during the Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton years we didnt have troops anywhere?

    He's been a Senator since 86 after being in the military for his whole life Einstein.


    Reagan and Bush were both military men. Jimmy Carter's Presidency was characterized by Iran taking hostages and an sever oil shortage. The current war plan was drawn up by the Clinton administration. Care to try again?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    I did not realize that military experience was a necessity for a president?
    Well at least some experience and a clear record and clear policies should be a necessity. But not for emotional leave your brain at home Obama voters. They get really riled up with his emotion grabbing rhetoric. They dont need to question where he stands or what proof there is of his abililty to accomplish his large promises for change. The only thing Obama is good at changing is the emotions of the bleeding heart libs.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    He's been a Senator since 86 after being in the military for his whole life Einstein.


    Reagan and Bush were both military men. Jimmy Carter's Presidency was characterized by Iran taking hostages and an sever oil shortage. The current war plan was drawn up by the Clinton administration. Care to try again?
    No need to be condesending slick, I think we are all well aware of his qualifications. In terms of military experience, so have much more than others, but that does not mean they are qualified.

    McCain serving in Vietnam and being a Senator dont necessarily mean he is or isnt qualified, however when his stance on the war is what it is, IMO he is not!!

  30. An Obama supporter questioning any other candidates experience is like Richard Simmons giving advice on how to pick up women.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2008, 06:24 PM
  2. Election 2004: Who are you voting for?
    By CEDeoudes59 in forum Politics
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: 10-30-2004, 03:02 AM
  3. International Monitoring of U.S. Election Called 'Frightening'
    By VanillaGorilla in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-11-2004, 03:52 AM
  4. The 2000 presidential Election 4 years later
    By VanillaGorilla in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2004, 06:07 AM
  5. Schwarzenegger is elected Gov.
    By lifted in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2003, 02:11 AM
Log in
Log in