2008 Election

Page 1 of 7 123 ... Last
  1. 2008 Election


    With the election down to basically a 4 person race (Sorry to Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee supporters, they are basically done), where do you throw your support.

    I must admit that I am disheartened at this point with all 4, but the person I disagree with the least is Barack Obama, so to answer my own question, he is where my vote goes in November if he is there.


  2. i got money on the demo's so as long as one of them gets in i don't care.
    •   
       


  3. I will be voting for Obama next week here in the NY State primary.

  4. I am a Ron Paul supporter BIG time, but like you said --- there really is no chance. None of the other republicans are anything I am excited about, but I believe John McCain will be most well-able to work "across the aisle" and to me if something is going to change in this country that is what has to happen.

  5. Blackjack, just curious if his stance on Iraq (major expansion of the war) scares you at all?
    •   
       


  6. I know I like Billary the least
    NSCA - CSCS

  7. any reason why?

  8. I said it before this race began, that if McCain got the nod, I'd vote for him with no hesitation. I don't necessarily agree with all his stances (who really agrees with all of any politician's stances?) but I do believe strongly that he speaks his mind and will undoubtedly be a good leader for America.

  9. with McCain for me his stance on the war and immigration are a tad off IMO

  10. McCain had one of his previous quotes brought up to question, "i hate all g**ks and I always will" but I suppose I could understand his rage being tortured as a POW.

    The only significant difference in policies between Billary and Obama was their policy on immigration and being from Southern California, that's a main issue. Obama made his refute that illegal immigrants don't effect social economics based on his experience in the south side of Chicago. Chicago is not the same as Southern California and the borders of Texas. That didn't appeal to me well.
    NSCA - CSCS

  11. McCain also had another quote brought up at the debate that was frightening: "We could very well be in Iraq for another 100 years"

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    McCain also had another quote brought up at the debate that was frightening: "We could very well be in Iraq for another 100 years"
    hahaha

    I'm not anti-Iraq war in all honesty. To be completely truthful, I've not taken the time to really do some self conviction in conjunction with international, short & long term concerns & consequence to really have a passionate stance on one side or the other. My surface reaction is more for it then against it, but I couldn't defend my stance with any convincing arguments from an internal belief or profound, informed reasoning. With that said, nothing about me can justify "another 100 years" even if that were a figure of speech, that mentality seems a bit crazy.

    If it can't be fixed in the next 10 years, f** we tried, it's time to go.

    I know we mean well, and I believe in "meaning well" to an extent, world peace & what not and abolishing enemies that threaten the U.S. I'm heavily for the latter (and I know we can get into why they're justified to hate us, bad international policies & what not, but my selfish side says if its I live or they live, I pick I live, and i'll leave it at that) But I just don't see Democracy band aiding tribal feuds that date back to the Book of Judges, no matter how bad we want it. I could be ignorant, but that's how I reason with my limited understanding of a very large picture.
    NSCA - CSCS

  13. Shoudn't start a war if you can't afford it... like body armor, etc.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by VolcomX311 View Post
    hahaha

    I'm not anti-Iraq war in all honesty. To be completely truthful, I've not taken the time to really do some self conviction in conjunction with international, short & long term concerns & consequence to really have a passionate stance on one side or the other. My surface reaction is more for it then against it, but I couldn't defend my stance with any convincing arguments from an internal belief or profound, informed reasoning. With that said, nothing about me can justify "another 100 years" even if that were a figure of speech, that mentality seems a bit crazy.

    If it can't be fixed in the next 10 years, f** we tried, it's time to go.

    I know we mean well, and I believe in "meaning well" to an extent, world peace & what not and abolishing enemies that threaten the U.S. I'm heavily for the latter (and I know we can get into why they're justified to hate us, bad international policies & what not, but my selfish side says if its I live or they live, I pick I live, and i'll leave it at that) But I just don't see Democracy band aiding tribal feuds that date back to the Book of Judges, no matter how bad we want it. I could be ignorant, but that's how I reason with my limited understanding of a very large picture.
    the funniest thing at the debate was when this was broached, Ron Paul looked at him dead in the face and said "care to tell me where we are going to get the money for that?" .....Priceless

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    McCain also had another quote brought up at the debate that was frightening: "We could very well be in Iraq for another 100 years"
    Apparently you dont understand world issues very well. McCain has always said that its not troop presence the American public cant stomach, its casualties. How long have we been in Korea? I guarantee we will have been there for over 100 years by the time we leave. Same thing with Iraq unless we vote in a gutless cut and run Dem.

    What he CLEARLY means by it is we will have a much much much smaller troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, as we have in Korea for around 50 years. Most likely a thousand troops or less. Anyone that is even capable of spinning that into making it look like he is saying our current troop numbers will continue for 100 years just doesnt understand world issues very well.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Apparently you dont understand world issues very well. McCain has always said that its not troop presence the American public cant stomach, its casualties. How long have we been in Korea? I guarantee we will have been there for over 100 years by the time we leave. Same thing with Iraq unless we vote in a gutless cut and run Dem.

    What he CLEARLY means by it is we will have a much much much smaller troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, as we have in Korea for around 50 years. Most likely a thousand troops or less. Anyone that is even capable of spinning that into making it look like he is saying our current troop numbers will continue for 100 years just doesnt understand world issues very well.
    Off Topic. Wasn't the show M*A*S*H* based in the Korean War?
    NSCA - CSCS

  17. Quote Originally Posted by VolcomX311 View Post
    Off Topic. Wasn't the show M*A*S*H* based in the Korean War?
    Yeah it was.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Apparently you dont understand world issues very well. McCain has always said that its not troop presence the American public cant stomach, its casualties. How long have we been in Korea? I guarantee we will have been there for over 100 years by the time we leave. Same thing with Iraq unless we vote in a gutless cut and run Dem.

    What he CLEARLY means by it is we will have a much much much smaller troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, as we have in Korea for around 50 years. Most likely a thousand troops or less. Anyone that is even capable of spinning that into making it look like he is saying our current troop numbers will continue for 100 years just doesnt understand world issues very well.
    first, so happy to see you back

    now onto the issue at hand. you are saying he clearly means that and you know this how? When it was broached at the debate that was not what was being said. Dr. Paul's response and McCains lack of response were not indicative of your point. Additionally, McCain has been quoted as saying we could very well use force in Iran and Pakistan as needed. We DO NOT need another war monger in the white house. It is time for a change from that nonsense

  19. im not voting unless ron paul is on the ballot. call me crazy but if you dont think he is the best choice for president then i think youre crazy.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by pistonpump View Post
    im not voting unless ron paul is on the ballot. call me crazy but if you dont think he is the best choice for president then i think youre crazy.
    I really do not understand why voting in the US isn't compulsary. All i can say is if members of the public do not vote and their man or women does not get the job then stfu and don't b1tch like everybody does about Bush.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Australian made View Post
    I really do not understand why voting in the US isn't compulsary. All i can say is if members of the public do not vote and their man or women does not get the job then stfu and don't b1tch like everybody does about Bush.
    im sorry, i dont quite get what youre saying?

  22. Quote Originally Posted by pistonpump View Post
    im sorry, i dont quite get what youre saying?
    not a swipe at u piston sorry. i remember the last time there was an election in the US i was in OZ and they were showing the people voting on tv. there was a heap of people who blatantly said they didnt want to spend there day lining up to vote or to register or whatever it is you have to do. but for the past few years every single american i have met absolutely loathes GWB yet they didnt vote against him for the reasons i mentioned above.thats what im saying. if you dont vote then your opinion doesnt count.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    first, so happy to see you back

    now onto the issue at hand. you are saying he clearly means that and you know this how? When it was broached at the debate that was not what was being said. Dr. Paul's response and McCains lack of response were not indicative of your point. Additionally, McCain has been quoted as saying we could very well use force in Iran and Pakistan as needed. We DO NOT need another war monger in the white house. It is time for a change from that nonsense
    Yes we need a weak inexperienced cut and run hippy that is the most liberal member of the US senate. A person who would cut tail and run from Iraq when we are winning. A person who would cause our country and the middle east irreparable harm with his idealistic, immature and weak minded foreign policy.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by CNorris View Post
    Yes we need a weak inexperienced cut and run hippy that is the most liberal member of the US senate. A person who would cut tail and run from Iraq when we are winning. A person who would cause our country and the middle east irreparable harm with his idealistic, immature and weak minded foreign policy.

    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.

    If you take a look online at ontheissuesdotcom or whatever the heck it is, some of McCains stances are downright frightening.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    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.

    If you take a look online at ontheissuesdotcom or whatever the heck it is, some of McCains stances are downright frightening.
    Actually we need someone who will fight for America's interests, for Iraq's interests the the entire world's interests by opposing a fascist, genocidal and flat out dangerous regime that is determined to obtain nuclear weapons and militarily dominate the middle east. We need a person that will not negotiate or appease evil where it exists. We dont need someone so blinded by his radical leftist hippy ideology that he will ignore and downplay any threats to world peace.

    Its people like Obama that would have opposed even getting involved in WW2. Excuse me if its tough for me to trust their blindly idealistic and flat out irresponsible ideology. I am not interested in voting for someone that bases their decisions on what the most evil, fascist and genocidal people in the entire world think. I dont want to vote for someone that is foolish enough to support peace even if it results in a nuclear armed Iran that will consolidate military power in the middle east, look to destroy Israel and threaten Europe and the US with long ranged nuclear missiles. If you think we should appease and not oppose Iran's stated goal to develop nuclear weapons technology than you are not fit for office, let alone to vote.'

    If you look at Obama's far left voting records and appeasement first; world safety a distant second foreign policy, it proves he is not experienced enough or smart enough to lead this country. I will not vote for anyone that Al Quaida, Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would endorse.

    I think its also important to remember that McCain is a moderate, Obama is the most far left senator. We have a radical leftist vs a moderate that will likely be the candidates in 2008. Good luck with that one liberals. No amount of rhetoric can cover up Obama's inexperience , far life ideology and bring him into the mainstream of America.
  •   

      
     

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