AE14
Board Sponsor
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? :lol:
2008 Election
- Thread starter AE14
- Start date
I did not realize that military experience was a necessity for a president? :lol:
AE14
Board Sponsor
both have said that they are leaving Iraq but not the area
however, it is the drain of the war that has led to major economic issues. Speak with Sen Chuck Hagel
Yes I did
Does not have to be
I think that is is a tad biased, no?
On certain issues. However his stance on the war is short sighted and very, very ultra conservative
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Yes, in a time of war where troops are abroad, it would be foolish to elect someone who has vast experience in that area.
AE14
Board Sponsor
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? :thumbsup:
I totally forgot that during the Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton years we didnt have troops anywhere?:wtf:
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
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."
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.
You're 32. You didn't. The height of the Cold War was not the 80's and 90's.
Thats your own problem, not mine.
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.
Funny, he held the same viewpoints as the Clinton administration pre war which we all know was a very, very, ultra conservative administration.
CNorris
Banned
Of course the vast experience in military and foreign affairs of Hillary and Obama is better.
:toofunny:
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
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?
CNorris
Banned
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.
AE14
Board Sponsor
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!!
AE14
Board Sponsor
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."
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.
You're 32. You didn't. The height of the Cold War was not the 80's and 90's.
Thats your own problem, not mine.
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.
Funny, he held the same viewpoints as the Clinton administration pre war which we all know was a very, very, ultra conservative administration.
before you give quotes you might want ot look for sources! Just a piece of advice Also I guess the difference of non combat troops and combat troops is lost on you?
I also understand the cyclical nature of the economy, however the presidents spending is pertinent
CNorris
Banned
Cut and Run, Cut and run.. Thats not a political solution to an existing problem, its a gutless and cowardly decision to run awayt from the problem without solving it and it will harm this country and the middle east for decades.
Cut and run is the most politically pathetic position I have ever seen. I guess Democrats want to relive the glory days of vietnam. Quite pathetic that one of America's lowest points is the high point of the democratic party. Further proving that if its bad for America, its good for Democrats.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
You are correct. Didn't mean to be and I'm sorry about that.
It means they are more qualified to deal with a military situation vs someone that is not.
I rest my case.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
New York Times.
Yes, dealing with a terrorist threat requires non combative troops.
Seriously, for someone who says Bush duped you, you sure make it easy for the others to do so as well.
Denial seems to be a big problem with the American public...on both sides.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
The governments purse goes through Congress, not the President.
CNorris
Banned
Its not very difficult to dupe those that are primarily driven by their intense anti war emotions.
A large majority of 911 conspriacy freaks are the result of boiling anti-war rage combined with an inability to comprehend the complexities of our world. Their emotions start to lead their brain and their convoluted and delusional views of the world and history reflect it. Unfortunately a large percent of Ron Paul and other anti war candidate supporters can be described in the same manner.
AE14
Board Sponsor
if you want to blame the dems for leaving then blame the neocons for going in the first place, all based on lies and false information
AE14
Board Sponsor
AE14
Board Sponsor
just remember 9-11 and Iraq are tow ENTIRELY different things.
CNorris
Banned
They lied? Not according to your democrat buddies. Please remember the facts here. Saddam intentionally radiated the perception that he possessed WMD. Every intellignece report from countless independant countries said the same thing. The same poeple fighting us in Iraq are part of the group that planned 911. If we cut an run they will establish their base and use Iraq to plan future 911's all over Europe and the US.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
HOW MANY TIMES DOES YOUR OLD TIRED BUSH LIED FANTASY HAVE TO BE DISPROVEN BEFORE YOU BELIEVE IT?
CNorris
Banned
HAHA me too. Romney is the most patheic flip flopping piece of garbage I have ever seen in politics. What makes it even sweeter is the fact that pathetic gutless and soulless flip flopper spent millions of his own dollars for nothing! HAHA Rot in hell flip flopper Romney.
What makes me depressed is how many fellow republicans can not even see straight through the most pathetic political hack in years.
OK enough of the rant, I am just so glad that man is out of the running and I wish he would leave the party as well.
Good Riddance, Go Away Romney
Mrs. Gimpy!
Well-known member
He was the only candidate I liked....
I am a bit out of the loop though and can only get most of my political info these days on AM radio (due to school)
CNorris
Banned
There is no way that flip flopping piece of crap gets invited onto the ticket by McCain. EVERY single other GOP candidate absolutely despised Romney because of his insincere conservatism, flip flopping and the lack of a single ounce of integrity in his body. Romney has changed his position on every single issue and essentially only stands for what he thinks will get him votes. I am appalled that my party did not see right trough him. I honestly can barely call myself a republican any more with all the support Romney got. He is the least genuine politician I have ever seen and he will never be VP or President.
warnerve
Well-known member
couldn't agree more. i have referred to him as the republican john kerry for quite some time
slow-mun
Well-known member
I bet Rudy Giuliani gets the VP nod.
WannaBeHulk
rollin' on dubs!
There is speculation that Huckabee will be McCain's running mate. He did his job and stole votes for Romney, and I think Romney did the respectable thing to drop out to unite the Republican party. However, Huckabee is a strict conservative and McCain's views are moderate. All I gotta say is that I hope the Dem nomination goes to Clinton. I dont like her, but this will allow almost all conservatives and most independents to vote McCain. Obama has the influence to sway these votes in his direction.
About the war: We are doing great things in Iraq. My dad and some good friends all have been there and report the importance of our presence. We havent heard any news there lately because the surge is working. The media will only report negative news with Iraq. We must also consider that the president knows a lot more than US citizens about what is happening overseas. I would love for a Dem to be elected then realize we cant leave iraq.
About the war: We are doing great things in Iraq. My dad and some good friends all have been there and report the importance of our presence. We havent heard any news there lately because the surge is working. The media will only report negative news with Iraq. We must also consider that the president knows a lot more than US citizens about what is happening overseas. I would love for a Dem to be elected then realize we cant leave iraq.
CNorris
Banned
I agree with you for the most part, but far right republicans dislike Huckabee nearly as much as they do McCain. Most of this is because they are brainwashed by Rush and other talk radio idots. The person that will be nominated will most likely not a big name. Kind of like Cheney. No one really knew who he was.
I disagree with you about Obama. His far left politics and lack of any significant experience will be exposed. His rhetoric, preacher like speeches can only go so far. This country will not hand over the presidency to a far leftist with no accomplishments other than being a good speaker.
No Dem stands a chance over McCain. This country does not want a retreat in Iraq, higher taxes, more regulation or socialized health care.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Romney "flip flopped" on two issues: gay rights, and abortion. That's less a flip flop and more an obligatory change in position all republicans take before running for national election.
Aside from that, the republicans of this nation just threw out the ONLY candidate from either major party that actually addressed issues with specifics, issues with which he was obviously well-versed considering he could have an impromptu discussion on the topics without "advisers", etc., and still put together very powerful and convincing arguments.
The ignorance and bigotry of the republican right (obvious mis-trust in his "mormonism") was very apparent this time around when a substance-less person like John McCain can win primaries and a religious zealot like Mike Huckabee was sitting in the race just to siphon off votes from the only intelligent and substantive candidate from either party because he despised his mormon beliefs.
You're completely out of your mind. People LOVE to get free things, and considering that 80%+ of the tax money comes from the top 4-5% of tax payers, people aren't THAT afraid of taxes--they just think that it's coming from the rich. Its become very apparent that American citizens are more than willing to give up freedoms for "free stuff" over the past couple of decades.
Socialized healthcare will be a disaster, yet, someone capable of doing so must present a strong case to the American people as to WHY it will be a disaster for the American people and why people shouldn't want so-called "free" healthcare. McCain can't do that.
And, to top it off, you obviously aren't familiar with your own candidate. McCain has been working with Governor Schwarzenegger on policies that will "reduce our carbon footprint". These policies essentially will lead to an additional 50 cents/gallon on gas and 20% increase in energy bills. He also wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts.
He is also in favor of more regulation--look up McCain Feingold. On top of it, his "immigration advisor" worked directly under Vincente Fox (ex-Mexican president). He wants to slam our doors right open. This is the idiot who tried to see his Amnesty bill as comprehensive "reform". Sure, you couldn't become a "citizen" under his bill unless you pay a $3,000 fine and learn to speak English, however, you can essentially stay indefinitely with the Z-Visa proposed in his bill which is indefinitely renewable.
I MAY vote for McCain on the basis of healthcare and a lesser of two evils with regards to tax alone. If it weren't for those two things, I'd probably throw my vote away to a third party candidate.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
I'd say this is the likely case. Huckabee played the devils part to do "God's work" in his eyes by doing whatever he could to get the "Mormon" as far away from the office of presidency as he could.
McCain/Huckabee is such a horrible combo, IMHO, I would seriously have a hard time not voting for Obama/Hillary if we didn't have taxes and healthcare at stake.
CNorris
Banned
Wow, I couldnt get past the ridiculous part about Romney not being a flip flopper. :toofunny:
Wow, honestly I feel bad for anyone that doesnt have the ability to see right through Romney for being what he is: The most pathetic lying flip flopping political hack I have ever seen. This guy has no integrity, no belief system and will say anything to get a vote. Romney is a joke and if you think he has one ounce of integrity well the joke is on you. HAHAH Romney not a flip flopper. Oh yeah he just changed his position. :toofunny:
I'll get back to you on this and you McCain comments. And boy it will be fun to compile all of his gutless flip flops and pathetic and arrogant, dishonest statements he has made.
EasyEJL
Never enough
The environment is a tough one for sure. But you and mrs gimpy want to have kids, how bad do you want it to get in their lifetime? Us alone working on our carbon footprint does nothing unless we can get china and india to also join in, but us refusing to do anything doesnt help. An increase in gas cost also will spur more investment in the private sector to finding alternatives which will reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil, which is a good thing.
Mccain only wanted repeal the bush tax cuts because they weren't offset by lowered spending. He has pledged to make them permanent but also to reduce federal spending to make them breakeven.
AE14
Board Sponsor
agreede, kinda crazy ticket, but it will get the missing evangelical vote. I still think they lose regardless. A possible Obama/Biden ticket would be interesting (just a rumor I hear)
EasyEJL
Never enough
I kind of think the reverse. the only possible ticket that the dems have that could beat it is the obama/hillary combo either way. it would take the 2 together. Mccain's only weakness is the potential that he doesn't get huge core republican turnout. With huckabee, he would. The problem is that with an obama/hillary ticket, so would the dems. Either of them alone with just about any other vp candidate would loose a lot of the independents.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I honesty think if Obama wins the the Dem ticket, nobody will stop him (and he won't have Hillary on the ticket).
This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue.
Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal. Looking at voter turnout even in red states he won, I think he will basically crush anyone on the right.
And I'm a Republican....
This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue.
Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal. Looking at voter turnout even in red states he won, I think he will basically crush anyone on the right.
And I'm a Republican....
AE14
Board Sponsor
I agree, I think he is the dems only chance, Hillary on her own will lose
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
You sound like idol John McCain... many words used, little said.
Last edited:
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
The effects of increased CO2 on global climate change are so ridiculously speculative, its not even funny. We don't even know if the effects will be positive, negative, or detrimental--to date we only have positive effects to note: 1) increased crop yields directly related to increasing CO2 around the world. The most publicized "negative" effects were polar glacial melting. Much of that region has been re-freezing rapidly! (Invalid Link Removed).
To top it off, there is still extensive debate as to the extent of human effect on (their portion of) global "warming". We know we're increasing CO2, sure. But, the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas on global temperatures is a logarithmic function. I.E. In the "dinosaur" era global CO2 approached 10,000ppm (vs about 380 now) and the world was nothing close to a giant desert--on the contrary, it was extremely green. There are many skeptic climatologists who believe we are probably responsible for no more than 5% or so of overall global warming and the rest is a function of natural trends associated with solar output activity--that would be why many of the other planets in our solar system are also experiencing global warming. The only argument here is that they haven't solve which comes first, increased CO2 or increased solar output--that's the point of debate at the moment.
My point is this: my main concern is not whether or not my kids will be living. CO2 is projected to be 700ppm in 100 years, 10x lower than it was while the dinosaurs roamed a big beautiful green earth. We'll live.
I'm much more concerned with some idiot, like McCain (or Hillabama for that matter), who is willing to stunt our economic growth and put us in a horrible position in order to satisfy a liberal/moderate voting block, or "reach across the aisle" as he puts it. I want my children to live in a safe, strong, and prosperous country. (A country which, contrary to its communist Chinese competition, has a long history of putting the good of the world first, and propelling the advancement of freedom, technology and prosperity across the world.)
So, he flip-flopped?
In all honesty, if he flip flopped and will honestly take that position, I can give a rats ass what his position was prior. All I want is that the good of the country, not the good of politicians seeking power for their "party", is put first. If that has to come in the form of a flip-flopping jelly-spined idiot, I'm fine with it as long as the end result is there.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
You're probably right. And, Obama scares me personally. But, he does have what the ignorant masses love to see/hear: charisma, and a promise of "change" for the better. People don't see through BS, and people don't ask questions, hell, people don't even require substance--they're stupid!
Listen to Obama for 5 minutes. He sounds like on of the kids from the Captain Planet squad. "I'm the candidate who can bring change! I'm the candidate who can make healthcare affordable to each and every person in this country, by bringing democrats and republicans together!" He talks as if the republocrats have these little magical rings that, once combined, can make bunnies fall out of the sky and all of the worlds problems will simultaneously be solved--all he had to do was "bring republicans and democrats together"
. Its so ridiculous that the ignorant masses are allowed to vote when they aren't current with the issues concerning our country, and its even more ridiculous that dirt-bag politicians can provide entirely substance-less rhetoric and receive thunderous applause and droves of support.