- 01-31-2008, 07:04 AM
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.
- 01-31-2008, 07:29 AM
01-31-2008, 09:55 AM
01-31-2008, 11:01 AM
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.
01-31-2008, 11:56 AM
01-31-2008, 05:50 PM
02-01-2008, 08:03 AM
02-01-2008, 11:46 AM
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.
02-01-2008, 11:57 AM
02-01-2008, 12:07 PM
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
02-01-2008, 12:25 PM
McCain also had another quote brought up at the debate that was frightening: "We could very well be in Iraq for another 100 years"
02-01-2008, 12:40 PM
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
02-01-2008, 12:51 PM
02-01-2008, 05:06 PM
02-01-2008, 05:29 PM
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.
02-01-2008, 05:33 PM
02-01-2008, 05:42 PM
02-02-2008, 07:59 AM
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
02-02-2008, 08:09 AM
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.
02-02-2008, 11:09 AM
02-02-2008, 11:33 AM
02-02-2008, 01:00 PM
02-02-2008, 01:58 PM
02-02-2008, 02:24 PM
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.
02-02-2008, 02:51 PM
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.
02-02-2008, 03:48 PM
just to sum it up, McCain may be moderate in certain areas, but his stance on the war is not. For you to imply by the way that there was a need to be in Iraq is downright laughable and shows a lack of knowledge on the country of Iraq and their "relationship" w/ AQ.
Additionally, Obama is most certainly not the most far left and is actually quite moderate considering his appeal to may of the independants. If you would like to make those statements, please source many of the votes you are referring to.
Finally, please show me where AQ endorsed Obama, I would love to see the commerical Osama for Obama. Come on man, you are stretching a bit thin on this
02-02-2008, 03:58 PM
And yes. Obama is moderate. Thats why he was named the most liberal member of the senate in 2007 based on his voting record. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
I am stretching it to say that radical fascist Muslims wouldn't rather have a terrorist appeasing cut and run hippy in office rather than a noble man that will oppose their evil goals? I don't think so. Honestly they would most likely prefer Cut and Run Ron, but I'm sure Obama would be better for them than McCain.
02-02-2008, 04:36 PM
Where evil exists depends who you ask. Maybe seek a broader consensus than from the American media and government propaganda machine.
The majority of Americans were strongly opposed to joining WW2. Wars are expensive and destructive instead of conservative and productive. No one wins by starting wars except those who profit from them, who are usually the same people advocating them.Its people like Obama that would have opposed even getting involved in WW2.
Iran has stated it has no interest in nuclear weapons technology. Oil is running out and they have a large population that needs energy, so they want to use nuclear power to produce electricity. There is no statement or evidence contrary to this, even after extensive nuclear inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.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.
American intelligence recently made a public statement confirming Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This was probably done so that its leaders didn't start another war based on ignorance and lies.
It sounds like you are still in the market for a war started under the pretense of looking for more WMDs that don't exist. You might want to do a little research about Iran before repeating the soundbite half-truths from media and other sources. You might also want to understand the background a little better by watching the BBC special The Power of Nightmares.
02-02-2008, 05:02 PM
Before popping the champagne, it is as well to remember that the NIE issued a report just over two years ago saying exactly the opposite. In its May 2005 analysis, it said that it had "high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons". Yet that gloomy assessment was made, according to this week's report, when the nuclear programme had already been on hold for two years. Intelligence may be an inexact science but this looks positively perverse. It argues for taking the NIE assessment with a generous pinch of salt: another one could come along in a year or two saying something else again."
I wish I could be as idealistic and ignorant to believe the lack of a smoking gun means that Iran has no intentions of using nuclear weapons on those long range missiles they are developing and testing. I wish I could ignore the words of their leaders who brazenly admit that nuclear technology is their right. I wish I could ignore a dangerous and genocidal regime that wants nothing more than to acquire nuclear weapons in order to consolidate military power in the middle east, threated Europe, the US and rise to be a superpower.
History will prove wrong all of you who think one report instantly makes Iran not a threat. Mark my words. You will be proven as wrong as those who wanted to stay out of the early parts of WW2.
"Iran's past behavior precludes any legitimate claim to nuclear power. You simply do not hand a loaded shotgun to a three year-old and not expect to get shot."
02-02-2008, 11:07 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Nightwanderer in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-22-2008, 06:24 PM
- By CEDeoudes59 in forum PoliticsReplies: 287Last Post: 10-30-2004, 03:02 AM
- By VanillaGorilla in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 08-11-2004, 03:52 AM
- By VanillaGorilla in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 04-09-2004, 06:07 AM
- By lifted in forum General ChatReplies: 11Last Post: 10-11-2003, 02:11 AM