Who will be the next US president? [Archive]

View Full Version : Who will be the next US president?

TetrySozy

2nd October 2008, 05:54 AM

Please vote

kareeem

2nd October 2008, 06:05 AM

I'm just guessing that this topic will be locked as it'll get way to heated and political.

If i were to start on Bush and McCain, i'm sure i'd get in some trouble ;) So that's Obama for me (even though i'll miss this voting election by a few months).

Zoltair Wright

2nd October 2008, 06:29 AM

Well, that McCain sure is [INSERT OPINION]. Whereas Obama without a doubt is [INSERT OPPOSITE OPINION].

But seriously, get registered today (http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&ai=Bws_C30vkSPbLE4_G8QTph-iVD5HexXax2Nu3CcHZnNkT0IYDEAEYASDBVDgAUJGFxYT5____ _wFgyQY&num=1&sig=AGiWqtwroBZLZTkvJEMaaeUJAchiG5yK9A&q=http://maps.google.com/maps/mpl%3Fmoduleurl%3Dhttp://maps.google.com/mapfiles/mapplets/elections/2008/us-voter-info/us-voter-info.xml#utm_source=google&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=hpp&utm_term=voterinfohpp), or your opinion won't count either way.

JimmyMcGee

2nd October 2008, 06:50 AM

Why is this in about XDA. XDA is on Servers in The Netherlands if I recall correctly.

Moved to Off-Topic.

I'm only going to say this once. Respectable exchange of opinions and ideas are allow. If it gets out of Hand, the thread will be closed and Bans will be given!

Black93300ZX

2nd October 2008, 07:14 AM

Well, I'm gonna throw up a bunch of videos, watch as many or as few as you want, and make your own judgments.

1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItM8TbUX6go&mcAuth=%2FBcAG0jkWCMAAK9WBFhZf0jkWF8I4tabct9uBrwAA A%3D%3D)

1B (related) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvqH6GnE3k0&NR=1&mcAuth=%252FBcAG0jhWz4AAK8%252BA5pc8EjhW3oI3kiAMB2 QWRUAAA%253D%253D&mcAuth=%2FBcAG0jkWDsAAK9AA%2F6iCUjkWHcI1Z%2Fp7Dohd WAAAA%3D%3D)

2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as&mcAuth=%2FBcAG0jkWFAAAPd%2BA%2F8S%2F0jkWIwIf3LRkWI 1hnkAAA%3D%3D)

3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmRkTJRfwqA&NR=1&mcAuth=%2FBcAG0jkWGAAAK9VBFpDkUjkWJwImvSuxVQAS%2B4 AAA%3D%3D)

4 (http://www.youtube.com/index?&ytsession=7MPlSwyO1yjjJz_oNTeZIG-ygviQHPAKU1HDe9KGNoUo9VtGz31Bo7BOHt1lequypNjEbxIZr k06H7_68Fce2eidWUtJAMm3BuHtzhBC9xL7HfqU2QWpGuMbX34 N6lwiMh_jbQ1DLy9ZrWmqVWcByaLZuzdQQ7Zhq1mlcVe_8_tsQ 9GQrBkM_0Q4Ng0VNNt3jpdprgkA8EC65tg2AexpBoR1FIzAliu LsO4SHNvYua9bmcz8BKc73UaBuJhrjvoxz4ZBKkZTfuo=)

5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU&NR=1&mcAuth=%2FBcAG0jkWIYAAK80A%2F5fU0jkWMIIH9c8T6S%2Bw yUAAA%3D%3D)

6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc&mcAuth=%252FBcAG0jhWyMAAPd1AZFNh0jhW18Iid8h1weRITE AAA%253D%253D&mcAuth=%2FBcAG0jkWJkAAPdwBFk9S0jkWNUI3d6uLgjAOqYAA A%3D%3D)

JimmyMcGee

3rd October 2008, 12:28 AM

Black93300ZX

3rd October 2008, 01:00 AM

What? Don't want to post the Anti-Obama Videos too? Sounding like CNN ;) :P

Find me some, show me exactly how Obama lies about everything he does... Please. :)

N1c0_ds

3rd October 2008, 03:51 AM

Find me some, show me exactly how Obama lies about everything he does... Please. :)

Heheh. If he does he does it well!

I saw the polls about a week ago and that's when I realized Obama isn't leading at ~70%. I didn't expect McCain to have so many supporters. I mean... 50 percent?!

Kraize

3rd October 2008, 04:35 AM

Eh. McCain still might have a chance. I mean Palin completes him. She can do things he cant. While Obama.......had....*cough*....made.....a...*cough* pretty bad choice at picking a vice president. They basically share views. They'll agree to the same thing so they'll always follow each other >.> Just stating opinion. Even though I'm not a US Citizen or 18+ in age. Just a US Resisdent that will be paying the taxes of the debt later in my life that you people created today >.>

derekwilkinson

3rd October 2008, 04:48 AM

I think Joe Biden KILLED Palin in tonight's debate.

Black93300ZX

3rd October 2008, 05:04 AM

I think Joe Biden KILLED Palin in tonight's debate.

I love how she beats around the bush on EVERY question. Simple question, the woman asked her "so is it safe to say that you two agree on gay marriage, you did say you didn't agree with it right?" And she goes on for 45 seconds talking about gay marriage! Haha hilarious. After she was done the woman asking questions was just like "ooookay... so you agree, now let's move on."

AllTheWay

3rd October 2008, 07:18 AM

Kraize

3rd October 2008, 07:27 AM

absorber786

3rd October 2008, 07:34 AM

first off I agree with the above post 12!!

ok here comes an observation from me in South Africa ...my observation is that every president of the USA for some time now is far worse than the previous (this is just my opinion) so regardless of who the next president it gonna interesting for me to see what's next? ...but I think Obama is gonna win..

(well I shouldn't talk too much, our political situation is currently in the dog house )

"long live democracy...so long as you agree with me" - absorber786 :)

Black93300ZX

3rd October 2008, 08:29 AM

I see the education system of this country has been corrupted by CNN and MSNBC.

What next? Get your daily news from John Stewart. No wait I know....get real "independent" journalism from the NY Times.

Honestly, if you think that a debates makes somebody intelligent or qualified to run a county or be second in command they you need to re-evaluate your own knowledge. Would it not be better to have somebody deliberate on topic before spouting out something?

I know Palin isn't qualified to run our country from far more than her debate tonight. It's nice to see you go ahead and criticize so quickly, I'm sure you'd love Palin to lead your country then? Hockey mom with 2 years of experience as governor of what? Oh yeah, the 2nd largest city in a state that has 683,000 people. New York City has roughly 8.5 million, and the man who was at the helm of that for a decade wasn't qualified to be president... But a woman who has 1/5th the experience and 1/100th the population under her is surely built for the job. If you think these candidates haven't carefully considered and weighed the options for every question and topic they spoke about tonight, tell me, why would they be running for president? They've prepared, they know what their stances are on every subject, and the debate is simply an opportunity to put them up against each other. I think you're the one who's misinformed or undereducated if you think this is a Jeopardy show-down for who can answer questions fastest, it's just a way for the people to see these two doctrines in direct comparison.

Black93300ZX

3rd October 2008, 08:32 AM

ok here comes an observation from me in South Africa ...my observation is that every president of the USA for some time now is far worse than the previous (this is just my opinion)

Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan... I'd say Reagan was slightly more successful than Nixon. ;-)

I see what you're saying, overall the presidents don't seem to stack up to what's been said about the past... But I think GWB is about to complete such a giant failure of a term that it skews our opinions on these things. Let's hope for a better future. :)

AllTheWay

3rd October 2008, 03:32 PM

I think you're the one who's misinformed or undereducated if you think this is a Jeopardy show-down for who can answer questions fastest, it's just a way for the people to see these two doctrines in direct comparison.

Actually I think Palin is a bad choice, but when I do vote I don't vote who I want to be vice president. Please share with us your infinite wisdom, in which an election was decided based soley on the vice presidential canidate. I do remember in 1992 when a man named Bill Clinton ran from a "small" state called Arkansas. I think he did pretty well as President. Just because somebody doesn't have vast experience in governing a large group of people doesn't make they disqualified from being a leader.

Do I think that picking Palin was a bad choice, yes. It was a political move by John McCain to gain votes. Will it pay off, I don't think so.

People are just so quick to judge somebody. I personally like the fact that she doesn't have vast experience in Washington politics and brings something new to the table. If you think policy and decisions by the president is made solely by themselves, then you sir are misinformed.

P1Tater

3rd October 2008, 07:06 PM

I know Palin isn't qualified to run our country from far more than her debate tonight. It's nice to see you go ahead and criticize so quickly, I'm sure you'd love Palin to lead your country then? Hockey mom with 2 years of experience as governor of what? Oh yeah, the 2nd largest city in a state that has 683,000 people. New York City has roughly 8.5 million, and the man who was at the helm of that for a decade wasn't qualified to be president... But a woman who has 1/5th the experience and 1/100th the population under her is surely built for the job. If you think these candidates haven't carefully considered and weighed the options for every question and topic they spoke about tonight, tell me, why would they be running for president? They've prepared, they know what their stances are on every subject, and the debate is simply an opportunity to put them up against each other. I think you're the one who's misinformed or undereducated if you think this is a Jeopardy show-down for who can answer questions fastest, it's just a way for the people to see these two doctrines in direct comparison.

With all of the "Liberal Talking Point's" just spouted, tell me Obama's qualifications to be President.:eek:

Talk about "Drinking the Kool-Aid". If you are going to spout opinions at least spout your own.

Black93300ZX

3rd October 2008, 07:58 PM

Actually I think Palin is a bad choice, but when I do vote I don't vote who I want to be vice president. Please share with us your infinite wisdom, in which an election was decided based soley on the vice presidential canidate. I do remember in 1992 when a man named Bill Clinton ran from a "small" state called Arkansas. I think he did pretty well as President. Just because somebody doesn't have vast experience in governing a large group of people doesn't make they disqualified from being a leader.

Do I think that picking Palin was a bad choice, yes. It was a political move by John McCain to gain votes. Will it pay off, I don't think so.

People are just so quick to judge somebody. I personally like the fact that she doesn't have vast experience in Washington politics and brings something new to the table. If you think policy and decisions by the president is made solely by themselves, then you sir are misinformed.

So you're saying Palin isn't qualified to run the country, but that's not a reason to vote against McCain/Palin. McCain is 72 years old, did you know that'd make him the oldest president in history? There's a good chance, with the high stress level of the job, that a 72-76 year old won't live through his entire term. Here's a shocker, who's president then? Palin. The part that bothers me though, is that McCain is just as much of a liar as Palin is... And a few of his positions (the war mainly) are enough to turn me away from him, he said he plans to be in Iraq for another decade... That's ridiculous. HAHA I just read the last sentence of your post, and here's what you're saying... "They don't need to be capable of making the decisions themselves, because no decision is made solely by the president." WAKE UP to the real world, regardless of how many people are advising them, a bad president can still fuck things up (see: President #43). Do you want to compare Palin to Clinton? Bill clinton was governor of Arkansas (an entire state, not a town) for 12 years. So here's what you're comparing to be the same. Clinton: 2,350,000 people under his governance for 12 years. Palin: Governor for 2 years, and get ready for this population, it's 10x less than even I thought... 9,780. Oh man, you're sooo right, there's no difference between 12 years and over 2 million people to 2 years and 10 thousand... Palin's just as qualified!

Black93300ZX

3rd October 2008, 08:07 PM

With all of the "Liberal Talking Point's" just spouted, tell me Obama's qualifications to be President.:eek:

Talk about "Drinking the Kool-Aid". If you are going to spout opinions at least spout your own.

He was an Illinois state senator from 1997-2004 and on the US senate from 2005 until present. He didn't get captured in another country 50 years ago, but I'm sure that would've made him much more qualified to be president. I think some people like to forget when talking about McCain, the man has 12 houses and a wife with more money than god, he's not the person he was 5 decades ago. He'll be just as conservative as GWB, and I love how he says he'll "shake things up" in Washington and end corruption... 7 of his major supporters are lobbyists, but I'm sure he's going to be the one to take them down... Right. The simple fact that everyone has heard 500 times but still ignores, McCain has had the same stance as George W. Bush on 90% of the issues that have come to question. Are you guys happy with the last 8 years of presidency? I know I'm not.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:15 PM

So you're saying Palin isn't qualified to run the country, but that's not a reason to vote against McCain/Palin. McCain is 72 years old, did you know that'd make him the oldest president in history? There's a good chance, with the high stress level of the job, that a 72-76 year old won't live through his entire term. Here's a shocker, who's president then? Palin. The part that bothers me though, is that McCain is just as much of a liar as Palin is... And a few of his positions (the war mainly) are enough to turn me away from him, he said he plans to be in Iraq for another decade... That's ridiculous. HAHA I just read the last sentence of your post, and here's what you're saying... "They don't need to be capable of making the decisions themselves, because no decision is made solely by the president." WAKE UP to the real world, regardless of how many people are advising them, a bad president can still fuck things up (see: President #43). Do you want to compare Palin to Clinton? Bill clinton was governor of Arkansas (an entire state, not a town) for 12 years. So here's what you're comparing to be the same. Clinton: 2,350,000 people under his governance for 12 years. Palin: Governor for 2 years, and get ready for this population, it's 10x less than even I thought... 9,780. Oh man, you're sooo right, there's no difference between 12 years and over 2 million people to 2 years and 10 thousand... Palin's just as qualified!

I suppose i should throw my hat into this "discussion" since I actually knew who Palin was well before you did. First, I think it's ignorant to say that because a man who has been a senator for like 30 years, and in fact ran for the democratic nomination for President "won" a debate with a person who was debating on the national forum for the first time automatically makes him more qualified to be President. Nobody is arguing that Biden has fewer credentials than Palin, because that would be stupid. McCain obviously took a chance with her because he wanted to bring in someone who was unknown, and someone with a reputation for "shaking things up" to go along with his "maverick" image. He chose a governor who is VERY popular in her home state. McCain will suffer significantly more from the economic downturn, than from his VP choice. Palin is much stronger than on most republican issues than McCain is actually.

As for your math...I haven't once heard anyone site her being Mayor of Wasilla as the primary basis of her experience. She was actually Mayor for 6 years, Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 2 years, and then was Governor of the State for 2 years. So if you're gonna belittle her accomplishments at least get your information straight so it doesn't make you look like a ignorant windbag.

The point AllTheWay made is really the central point. People always vote for who they want to be president. In the end it will come down to Obama or McCain, not Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. I certainly respect Obama, and is desire to do good for the American people. I will not vote for him, because i disagree with his plans on how to do that, but i do not believe his intentions to be any less pure than McCain. Whoever becomes president will have a HUGE mess to deal with right off the bat, and in that case the question is do you want inexperience NOW or inexperience possibly LATER, if a certain set of circumstances arise?

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:17 PM

He was an Illinois state senator from 1997-2004 and on the US senate from 2005 until present. He didn't get captured in another country 50 years ago, but I'm sure that would've made him much more qualified to be president. I think some people like to forget when talking about McCain, the man has 12 houses and a wife with more money than god, he's not the person he was 5 decades ago. He'll be just as conservative as GWB, and I love how he says he'll "shake things up" in Washington and end corruption... 7 of his major supporters are lobbyists, but I'm sure he's going to be the one to take them down... Right. The simple fact that everyone has heard 500 times but still ignores, McCain has had the same stance as George W. Bush on 90% of the issues that have come to question. Are you guys happy with the last 8 years of presidency? I know I'm not.

I'm glad to see you can repeat everything that you see in commercials. If you always speak in hyperbole, and with a hostile tone then people won't take your arguments seriously. McCain is no Bill Gates, Larry Ellis, Warren Buffett, Michal Dell or even any of the Walton's...all of whom i would guess have less money than God, seeing as how he can create things from nothingness...kinda defeats the point of having money does it?

P1Tater

3rd October 2008, 08:27 PM

He was an Illinois state senator from 1997-2004 and on the US senate from 2005 until present. He didn't get captured in another country 50 years ago, but I'm sure that would've made him much more qualified to be president. I think some people like to forget when talking about McCain, the man has 12 houses and a wife with more money than god, he's not the person he was 5 decades ago. He'll be just as conservative as GWB, and I love how he says he'll "shake things up" in Washington and end corruption... 7 of his major supporters are lobbyists, but I'm sure he's going to be the one to take them down... Right. The simple fact that everyone has heard 500 times but still ignores, McCain has had the same stance as George W. Bush on 90% of the issues that have come to question. Are you guys happy with the last 8 years of presidency? I know I'm not.

Once again, quoted liberal talking points from Air America, MSNB and CNN just to name a few. It would be nice to see opinions and not copied and pasted text.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:29 PM

I love how she beats around the bush on EVERY question. Simple question, the woman asked her "so is it safe to say that you two agree on gay marriage, you did say you didn't agree with it right?" And she goes on for 45 seconds talking about gay marriage! Haha hilarious. After she was done the woman asking questions was just like "ooookay... so you agree, now let's move on."

This is just as ridiculous as all the McCain supporters who say that Obama is indecisive because he always pauses, before he answers a questions. Speaking style does not equal competence. For example, if i judged everyone here on the forum by the quality of thought that goes into their posts i'd have to assume there are a lot of idiots on this site. I know for a fact that is not the case, and to some extent is my own bias on how things should be articulated. I would say that the polls do not support the belief that Biden "killed" Palin in the debate, but rather that he was more effective than her, but not clearly superior. As I said before, it is not surprising that a long time senator who has been in many national level public debates over the years would appear more comfortable than a relative Washington newcomer participating in her first National debate.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:33 PM

Ah okay, you're correct. So it comes down to 2 years of governing 700,000 people or 12 years governing 2,350,000. You're right, that makes her more qualified than Clinton. And I guess you missed my response to AllTheWay when I said the debate wasn't what showed me she wasn't qualified to be vice president, I knew that long before last night. I don't think the debate is meaningless, but I don't think it should decide the election either.

I never said she was more qualified than Bill Clinton, that would be absurd to say. But yet again, Bill Clinton was running for PRESIDENT not the VP spot. It seems to be lost on most people that it isn't the same job and it's not exactly common for the VP to end up assuming the presidency. The debate was just a debate, and unless you're a die hard Obama supporter you wouldn't say that Biden won anything in a landslide. It was a quality showing i think by both candidates, but the upcoming Presidential debates will make everyone forget that this even happened.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:34 PM

I'm not here to be taken seriously, this is an internet forum and I really don't care if my opinions are considered or not. Regardless of what we say here, people have their own opinions and they'll vote their own way. And I apologize on behalf of everyone in the world who has ever used the statement "more money than god", it's a pretty common one but I guess you hadn't heard it.

Hyperbole is exaggeration for the sake of emphasis, I wanted to emphasize how John McCain is living no normal, middle class life. He's not the 20 year old soldier he was, he's a multi millionaire and has been for the better part of 5 decades. I guess you can't look beyond the words themselves and see that, you chose to take it literally, which obviously shows a lack of intuition when interpreting hyperbolic speech.

So you're saying that being an American success story disqualifies you from being a realistic candidate for president? Was McCain always "richer than God"?

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:37 PM

As for the debate she looked pretty comfortable to me, and I never said Biden "killed" her, I thought it was much closer than whoever said that thought it was.

Then explain to me which part CLEARLY illustrated that she wasn't ready to be VP?

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:38 PM

Nope, he married into money... He didn't do anything to become that American success story himself, why don't you read up on it? :)

Marrying into money isn't the American dream? lol...when did that happen?

P1Tater

3rd October 2008, 08:39 PM

If youtube videos are what is making decisions for people, here's some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqH-BB6brKg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a91VZUi1IN4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKqngjmndBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6pkbeDYMkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnVZpA69j0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ehRrX7c41U

P1Tater

3rd October 2008, 08:43 PM

Already found false information in that first video...

"Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate"

If you saw the debate last night, there was big talk about how Obama and Biden voted against the funding for our troops, and McCain did as well because there was a time frame on when we would pull out.

All I am saying is anyone can put anything on youtube. Youtube should never be used as a talking point.

P1Tater

3rd October 2008, 08:46 PM

Oh okay, well, I have more respect for people that earn it but apparently you want the man running your country to have everything given to him. Good goin, chief.

Following that theory, John Kerry should have never been considered as a nominee.

Edit:
I'm done with this debate. This can go on forever and could end up getting ugly. There has already been cursing and yelling in this thread.

@ Everyone,
Please keep things calm or we will have no choice but to close the thread.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:46 PM

ARE YOU BLIND???

I've said throughout this ENTIRE thread the debate wasn't what showed me she wasn't qualified, and then you ask me what part of the debate showed me she couldn't be VP... Seriously, start reading.

I love how the longer people talk with you the more hostile your tone gets. I apologize for getting two people's quotes confused. I tried to glance a quick peak at the forum while i was working, and while doing several other things misunderstood what you said.

Oh okay, well, I have more respect for people that earn it but apparently you want the man running your country to have everything given to him. Good goin, chief.

I obviously meant that tongue in cheek, guess that whole taking words too seriously goes both ways. I just don't think the amount of money someone has should affect our perception of them as being able to be president. I don't care if the guy has one $300,000 home or fifteen twelve million dollar homes. To me i think it's a moot point. Obama is significantly younger than McCain, what's to say 25 years from now he wouldn't be twice as rich as McCain? Would that make him less qualified?

P1Tater

3rd October 2008, 08:53 PM

Please keep things calm.

Warning issued.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 08:57 PM

Well I've gotta get back to work. To address the actual topic of the discussion. I think that Obama will probably win, it will not be because i voted for him, but i believe the economy will continue to get worse for awhile, and that will ultimately push more voters to Obama because people believe he has a better grasp on the economy. I will not vote for him, but if, in the end i'm proven wrong, i will be happy be wrong. I think you have to vote your convictions, and allow others to vote their's as well. In the end, even if we both discuss purely the facts we are all going to have a different interpretation of the facts.

Well if you don't think 50 years and tons of money can change a person, I don't know what can. That's the biggest point here, with all of these statements about McCain they're referring to the 20 year old John McCain, not the 72 year old. The fact is, he's not a POW, he's not fighting for our country, he did that half a century ago and that's great... I don't mean to belittle his accomplishments as being a POW is not exactly a stroll through the park, but he's not the same person he was then. He's much more conservative because he has the money and wants to keep it, and while he says he won't cut taxes on big businesses his wife owns one.

Well what level to cut taxes at to stimulate the economy is really a very complex and convoluted issues, and anyone who tells you they know exactly what effects any tax cut or increase will have on the economy is either lying or an idiot. Each person has a plan which they believe will cause a desired effect, but neither knows. You don't have any money, so you reap the most benefit from taxing big business and the wealthy more instantly; however, at what point does the tax burden on business become a deterrent from expansion and development of new products. That's not a simple answer, and if the economy doesn't continue to grow then it won't matter what rate you are taxed at if you can't get a job. I want to make it CLEAR that i do not completely agree with EITHER candidate on their fiscal policy, but in the end am forced to vote for the individual who i believe MOST accurately represents my personal view. Which is why i vote McCain over Obama. Simple as that.

AllTheWay

3rd October 2008, 08:58 PM

So you're saying Palin isn't qualified to run the country, but that's not a reason to vote against McCain/Palin. McCain is 72 years old, did you know that'd make him the oldest president in history?
Yes I did know that. Ronald Raegan is currently the oldest President ever, and if I'm not mistaken he did a pretty damn good job when he was President.

There's a good chance, with the high stress level of the job, that a 72-76 year old won't live through his entire term.
Having a heart attack or one "heartbeat" away can be said about any president.

Here's a shocker, who's president then? Palin. The part that bothers me though, is that McCain is just as much of a liar as Palin is... And a few of his positions (the war mainly) are enough to turn me away from him, he said he plans to be in Iraq for another decade...

Do you have facts to back this up?

From what I read there is already a pull out plan set for 2009.

That's ridiculous. HAHA I just read the last sentence of your post, and here's what you're saying... "They don't need to be capable of making the decisions themselves, because no decision is made solely by the president." WAKE UP to the real world, regardless of how many people are advising them, a bad president can still fuck things up (see: President #43).

Hmm I wonder why the president has a presendital cabinet/advisors. I guess that's just for show.

Do you want to compare Palin to Clinton? Bill clinton was governor of Arkansas (an entire state, not a town) for 12 years. So here's what you're comparing to be the same. Clinton: 2,350,000 people under his governance for 12 years. Palin: Governor for 2 years, and get ready for this population, it's 10x less than even I thought... 9,780. Oh man, you're sooo right, there's no difference between 12 years and over 2 million people to 2 years and 10 thousand... Palin's just as qualified!

You're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said Palin was as qualified as Bill Clinton simply making a comparison.

Once again your putting words in my mouth...did I ever say that I was voting for McCain / Palin? No. So stop putting words into my mouth. I like to educate myself on all of the issues before I decide on who I want to vote for.

What's really wrong with this country is the party system as a whole!

Let me quote George Washington's farwell address from 1796, maybe you have heard of him.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Incase you want to read the entire transcript, and no I didn't pull this from Wikipedia.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=15&page=transcript

Ron Paul 2012!

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 09:09 PM

So you're saying you do agree that the president doesn't have to be ready to make decisions because they have their cabinet... Interesting.

Where ON EARTH did you hear McCain will pull out in 2009??? HE'D BE ELECTED IN 2009. Biden was arguing for a 16 month pull out strategy with Palin last night, and she (and McCain) think that's way too soon to pull out of Iraq because it would leave them "unstable". So while they have an 80 million dollar surplus, we're going into more and more debt (20 million a month spent) to support them with our military. That makes sense.

Yes, that was quoted from the debate last night.

Yes, Reagan was 69 when he was elected, but are you saying there's a correlation? I don't think age has anything to do with what a good or bad president you'd make, it seems like that's what you're getting at by saying Reagan was good. My point is, the oldest in history and we've already had presidents die (not counting assassinations of course) while in office... It's far from a guarantee that he won't last 4 years, but also far from a guarantee that he will.

You replied to his post about putting words in his mouth, by...putting words in his mouth. I bet everyone is about done "discussing" things with you since you obviously only hear what you want to.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 09:24 PM

And you were done with me as well, going back to work, but you decided to pop up and stick up for him while not saying anything, really.

Yeah, i changed my mind. Fortunately for me I've EARNED the right to a few meaningless posts here and there, because unlike some people, the bulk of my posts didn't come from arguing with people.

scotchua

3rd October 2008, 09:38 PM

Irony much, considering earlier I had to say something to you 3 times before you finally understood that the debate wasn't what swayed my opinion on the election? I'm done with this, that statement right there was the ultimate hypocrisy... Bye all.

The difference was that i admitted that i made a mistake, and confused your post with someone else's. Being confused and intentionally reading what i wanted to hear are not the same thing. ;)

AllTheWay

3rd October 2008, 09:49 PM

And pulling up that Washington address doesn't have much relevance in this debate, I'm glad you feel smart by finding a document without wikipedia but we're not arguing whether or not parties should exist. That seems like something I'd do when I was 16, pull up some sort of document and throw in the snide comment of "I didn't get this from Wikipedia" to assure everyone else of my intelligence to find it, yet it's arguing something that's been around as long as either of us have been alive and will be around for a long time more.

I was making a point that neither canidadate is qualified for this position, and that the two party system is a bad idea. Since we are debating about Republicans and democrats.

This also shows that you have little disregard for people here and that no matter what is said your point won't change or mind.

This originial discussion was about Who will be the next president!

Making a comment about my intelligence level shows the character that you have. I'm glad you are representing somebody who has little disregard for another human being. Keep on preaching!!! Your just making yourself look worse. Apparently having an open disussion with you is not feasable.

You attack another individual here by insulting them and this discussion will be closed!

Maybe you will understand that!

P1Tater

3rd October 2008, 10:30 PM

I was afraid this thread would go down this road.

Thread Closed.