2008 Presidential Candidate

Sox, PD is right he justs words things very ineloquently.

SoxNats wrote:

Once again, like I said we never should have gone in, but we either have to go all out on this or we shouldn't have done it at all. This doesn't have to primarily relate to money now, it also has to do with world relations. If we pull out of Iraq now, and then the Middle East collapses as it surely will (I know that that seems a bit dramatic, but I'll give you an idea of what will happen: anarchy, riots, people attacking oil plants which would increase gas prices even more, Iran invading Iraq, you get the idea), not only will gas prices increase, the United States will be hated and loathed for destroying lives. As difficult as it is to say, if we did leave Iraq it would not be hard to look back and say that the region was more successful under Saddam Hussein.

This does still relate primarily to money. It also relates to world relations. Both of which Goerge Bush has grandly fucked up. The U.S has plenty of their own problems right now, and we have many things we want to get done. We can't get rid of the deficit, increase the quality of public schools, aid the economy, create more programs for the poor or even get Universal Healthcare without money. That money is being invested in Iraq right now.

What we need to do and should do, is pull back many of the troops (maybe 60%) gradually within the next three years, move some of those to Afghanistan and start the REAL terrorist hunt for Osama Bin Laden. With all the money we'll be saving from the war, we need to generate some renevue and eliminate taxes for the upper class citizens, and start working on those problems we have. We also need to quell the steady rise of gas prices, which can only be done by investing in the oil companies in the Middle East and cooperating via diplomacy with our "enemies".

There will still be fighting in the Middle East, and we can't stop that and we won't. I also don't know where you got "people attacking oil plants" because they have never done that and doubtfully will be able to. The United States will be "loathed" for a very long time, and we can't change that either. But if we do get the right guy into office, it'll be a change in the right direction.

SoxNats wrote:

First off, it cannot be really classified as a war anymore. Who are the two sides in the war? You can say its the terrorists vs. the US, but they are basically in hiding and occasionally bomb places and use guerilla warfare. Even if they don't want our help, I am sure that they would rather have the current situation then anarchy.

You may think that I am being dramatic, but I can almost guarantee you that to some extent, the aforemented situation would occur if we were to leave Iraq.

I by no means support the situation in Iraq, but you are taking a very radical position, and to leave Iraq within the next year would be outright stupid.

It of course is still a War. We are still fighting the same enemy, whether we are succeeding or not. This is the War on Terror and terrorists are the bad guys.

Your statements are very very bold, and although Iraqi's want and need a stable government, it is not the United State's job to do that.

Anarchy? Not likely at all. The "Democratic government" we instituted would only last for another 5 years maybe and another dictator would arise. This would obviously not be a situation the U.S wants, but if we can handle the new government well (with diplomacy) then all can possibly be well.

mksadng wrote:

Nerd85 wrote:

mksadng wrote:

Yayanjl care to explain why Ron Paul is gay?

He wanted to get rid of congress

And legalize Marijuana which would bring in TONS of money...

I don't disagree with that, it's just the majority of his policies are BS. Marijuana should be legal only for medical use.

Nerd85 wrote:

mksadng wrote:

Nerd85 wrote:

mksadng wrote:

Yayanjl care to explain why Ron Paul is gay?

He wanted to get rid of congress

And legalize Marijuana which would bring in TONS of money...

I don't disagree with that, it's just the majority of his policies are BS. Marijuana should be legal only for medical use.

1. It already is.
2. Marijuana does nothing bad to you...It doesnt impair your desicion making skills, it doesnt affect your common scence and honestly Alcohol IS SOOOOOOOO much worse for you its not even funny.

Its ridiculous how a NATURAL plant like Marijuana is illegal but Alcohol something that kills thousands of people a year is still legal...

I have no idea about anything on the marijuana issue so I won't say anything stupid.

Nerd85 wrote:

This does still relate primarily to money. It also relates to world relations. Both of which Goerge Bush has grandly fucked up. The U.S has plenty of their own problems right now, and we have many things we want to get done. We can't get rid of the deficit, increase the quality of public schools, aid the economy, create more programs for the poor or even get Universal Healthcare without money. That money is being invested in Iraq right now.

I agree with most of this, you have good points here.

Nerd85 wrote:

What we need to do and should do, is pull back many of the troops (maybe 60%) gradually within the next three years, move some of those to Afghanistan and start the REAL terrorist hunt for Osama Bin Laden. With all the money we'll be saving from the war, we need to generate some renevue and eliminate taxes for the upper class citizens, and start working on those problems we have. We also need to quell the steady rise of gas prices, which can only be done by investing in the oil companies in the Middle East and cooperating via diplomacy with our "enemies".

Yeah that makes sense but PD wants us to take out all our troops... The rest is also a good plan.

Nerd85 wrote:

There will still be fighting in the Middle East, and we can't stop that and we won't. I also don't know where you got "people attacking oil plants" because they have never done that and doubtfully will be able to. The United States will be "loathed" for a very long time, and we can't change that either. But if we do get the right guy into office, it'll be a change in the right direction.

SoxNats wrote:

First off, it cannot be really classified as a war anymore. Who are the two sides in the war? You can say its the terrorists vs. the US, but they are basically in hiding and occasionally bomb places and use guerilla warfare. Even if they don't want our help, I am sure that they would rather have the current situation then anarchy.

You may think that I am being dramatic, but I can almost guarantee you that to some extent, the aforemented situation would occur if we were to leave Iraq.

I by no means support the situation in Iraq, but you are taking a very radical position, and to leave Iraq within the next year would be outright stupid.

It of course is still a War. We are still fighting the same enemy, whether we are succeeding or not. This is the War on Terror and terrorists are the bad guys.

Your statements are very very bold, and although Iraqi's want and need a stable government, it is not the United State's job to do that.

Anarchy? Not likely at all. The "Democratic government" we instituted would only last for another 5 years maybe and another dictator would arise. This would obviously not be a situation the U.S wants, but if we can handle the new government well (with diplomacy) then all can possibly be well.

Yes, but there will be less fighting if we are there. I still think that Iraq would collapse if we took out our troops within a year. And if a new dictator arises, then we have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Most of your statements make sense, but PD's are complete BS.

It doesn't matter with the fighting... The Sunnis and Shi'ite's can hate and murder each other for all I care, as long as America is in good shape.

If a new dictator arises when we leave, so be it. We wouldn't have accomplished anything, but all of us intelligent folk knew that from the beginning, right?

Iraq is going to collapse whether we like it or not. Our oil resources will get damaged, which is why our new administration needs to be thinking about investing in the new alternative energy sources of tomorrow.

Im sorry but the only person I liked Was Ron Paul.

Here is my thoughts on the ones you have listed.

Obama- What change is he going to bring? Besides a skin color change? I mean really I can't be behinde a guy who would stand up for his crazy Pastor. He also cant make up his mind. First he is behinde the guy now he isnt. When we all know the real reason he would be behinde his pastor or wouldnt be behinde him is due to how it hurted his chances. At least With Bush when he makes up his mind he sticks to it.

Now on to Hillary Cliton- Do I want to see a female President? Not really I mean we gave women enough powers as is. Anymore would hurt us. Name one great successful country that has be lead by a woman. Plus if she couldnt please Bill what makes you think she could please the USA?

as for the last guy I hate him. He is boring shows no improvement over bush. So what he was in a war which we didnt win by the way so it makes him a WAR Hero? People use that word too offten now adays. I dont like any of them overal. But if I really had a vote. I'd have to say lets get new people to chose from.

SilverNBlackAttack wrote:

Im sorry but the only person I liked Was Ron Paul.

Here is my thoughts on the ones you have listed.

Obama- What change is he going to bring? Besides a skin color change? I mean really I can't be behinde a guy who would stand up for his crazy Pastor. He also cant make up his mind. First he is behinde the guy now he isnt. When we all know the real reason he would be behinde his pastor or wouldnt be behinde him is due to how it hurted his chances. At least With Bush when he makes up his mind he sticks to it.

Now on to Hillary Cliton- Do I want to see a female President? Not really I mean we gave women enough powers as is. Anymore would hurt us. Name one great successful country that has be lead by a woman. Plus if she couldnt please Bill what makes you think she could please the USA?

as for the last guy I hate him. He is boring shows no improvement over bush. So what he was in a war which we didnt win by the way so it makes him a WAR Hero? People use that word too offten now adays. I dont like any of them overal. But if I really had a vote. I'd have to say lets get new people to chose from.

Wow.... couple of things. Obama doesn't represent his pastor, and has said that he doesn't support his views.

But I'm shocked at how sexist you are. Do you think women are inferior? And to your question, I'll name a country: England. Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of England during the 80s.

PD Just because Bush was republican doesn't mean that the republican party agrees with everything he does...


As to the issue of the war, I have a big problem with people who don't support it. You probably wonder why, and here is my reasoning. Do I want us in there? No. Our soldiers are volunteers and they are risking their lives everyday they are over there. And to not support them when they need it most is absolutely idiotic.

NorCal-TitanFan wrote:

PD Just because Bush was republican doesn't mean that the republican party agrees with everything he does...


As to the issue of the war, I have a big problem with people who don't support it. You probably wonder why, and here is my reasoning. Do I want us in there? No. Our soldiers are volunteers and they are risking their lives everyday they are over there. And to not support them when they need it most is absolutely idiotic.

OK there is a big difference. I don't support the war. However, I do support our troops. I want our troops to be safe, and slowly get out of there, even though because of the aforementioned reasons, taking out our troops now would be terrible.

SoxNats08 wrote:

NorCal-TitanFan wrote:

PD Just because Bush was republican doesn't mean that the republican party agrees with everything he does...


As to the issue of the war, I have a big problem with people who don't support it. You probably wonder why, and here is my reasoning. Do I want us in there? No. Our soldiers are volunteers and they are risking their lives everyday they are over there. And to not support them when they need it most is absolutely idiotic.

OK there is a big difference. I don't support the war. However, I do support our troops. I want our troops to be safe, and slowly get out of there, even though because of the aforementioned reasons, taking out our troops now would be terrible.

Yeah, but not supporting the war hurts the morale of the soldiers..

SoxNats08 wrote:

SilverNBlackAttack wrote:

Im sorry but the only person I liked Was Ron Paul.

Here is my thoughts on the ones you have listed.

Obama- What change is he going to bring? Besides a skin color change? I mean really I can't be behinde a guy who would stand up for his crazy Pastor. He also cant make up his mind. First he is behinde the guy now he isnt. When we all know the real reason he would be behinde his pastor or wouldnt be behinde him is due to how it hurted his chances. At least With Bush when he makes up his mind he sticks to it.

Now on to Hillary Cliton- Do I want to see a female President? Not really I mean we gave women enough powers as is. Anymore would hurt us. Name one great successful country that has be lead by a woman. Plus if she couldnt please Bill what makes you think she could please the USA?

as for the last guy I hate him. He is boring shows no improvement over bush. So what he was in a war which we didnt win by the way so it makes him a WAR Hero? People use that word too offten now adays. I dont like any of them overal. But if I really had a vote. I'd have to say lets get new people to chose from.

Wow.... couple of things. Obama doesn't represent his pastor, and has said that he doesn't support his views.

But I'm shocked at how sexist you are. Do you think women are inferior? And to your question, I'll name a country: England. Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of England during the 80s.

Yes he did, until people heard what his pastor was about. Look back awhile he did support his pastor 100% until the media found out what his pastor was about. That was durring the 80's Im not being sexist Im being honest. When you think of the USA what do you see as a leader of this country of ours? A female leader not so. Its a mans job to lead the White House And Goverment. I mean she looks like a dike so maybe it could happen but still she is 100% pure grade shit. You ever hear her speeches? She dosent have anything helping her and her succes is built off of Bill without bill or the Cliton last name I know for a fact people wouldnt give two shits about her.

SilverNBlackAttack wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

SilverNBlackAttack wrote:

Im sorry but the only person I liked Was Ron Paul.

Here is my thoughts on the ones you have listed.

Obama- What change is he going to bring? Besides a skin color change? I mean really I can't be behinde a guy who would stand up for his crazy Pastor. He also cant make up his mind. First he is behinde the guy now he isnt. When we all know the real reason he would be behinde his pastor or wouldnt be behinde him is due to how it hurted his chances. At least With Bush when he makes up his mind he sticks to it.

Now on to Hillary Cliton- Do I want to see a female President? Not really I mean we gave women enough powers as is. Anymore would hurt us. Name one great successful country that has be lead by a woman. Plus if she couldnt please Bill what makes you think she could please the USA?

as for the last guy I hate him. He is boring shows no improvement over bush. So what he was in a war which we didnt win by the way so it makes him a WAR Hero? People use that word too offten now adays. I dont like any of them overal. But if I really had a vote. I'd have to say lets get new people to chose from.

Wow.... couple of things. Obama doesn't represent his pastor, and has said that he doesn't support his views.

But I'm shocked at how sexist you are. Do you think women are inferior? And to your question, I'll name a country: England. Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister of England during the 80s.

Yes he did, until people heard what his pastor was about. Look back awhile he did support his pastor 100% until the media found out what his pastor was about. That was durring the 80's Im not being sexist Im being honest. When you think of the USA what do you see as a leader of this country of ours? A female leader not so. Its a mans job to lead the White House And Goverment. I mean she looks like a dike so maybe it could happen but still she is 100% pure grade shit. You ever hear her speeches? She dosent have anything helping her and her succes is built off of Bill without bill or the Cliton last name I know for a fact people wouldnt give two shits about her.

Wow

PatsDynasty wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

Desert Demon wrote:

PatsDynasty wrote:

yayanjl wrote:

I want a republican to win... so GO MCCAIN!!!

and BTW, Ron Paul is gay.

how can u want a republican to win, george bush has already fucked up america enough

One of the more ignorant statements I've read.

This supports my view that some people honestly should not be allowed to vote, due to incompetence.

Since when was George W. Bush "the" Republican party? Sure, he's a representative of it as President, but he isn't the epitamy of it.

Politicians join political parties that most resemble what they believe in, so they can advance further; without the political party, unless they have billions of dollars and influence, they won't be elected.

That is why you have politicians who believe in the same things in general in a party, but may have radically differing opinions on specific topics.

In addition, keep in mind that Congress is majority Democrats right now, and Bush is a Republican. In history, with very few exceptions, when one party has presidency and the other has congress, very little gets done. The President stops Congress with vetoes, and Congress doesn't allow the President to get his bills approved.

Ugh shut up PD, Ruskie is right, you just made yourself look like a retard.

In terms of political decisions, I don't think McCain would be a bad president by far, but I simply don't side with conservative views which is why I would vote for Obama (or Clinton if she was the nominee). Clinton has good policies, and I think she would be pretty successful. As for Obama, I have a feeling that he will lead this country really well. He has good ideas, the only thing I don't like of his is that he wants to pull out all our troops out of Iraq in the next year (don't have a source on that, I just remember hearing that). We definitely shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that the damage has been done, if we back out of Iraq, the Middle East will crumble. It has to be a gradual effort over about 3 more years, and we need to make sure the Iraq government is completely stable before we leave. A good comparison is that we went somewhere, made a complete mess, and then leave someone else to clean up after us. The mess should have never been made in the first place, but since we made the mess, we have to clean it up. But at the same time, we have to leave Iraq before 2015, American lives are at stake.

McCain wouldnt be a good president, he wants to stay in iraq until we win, and thats probably a war we r not going to win. Also with all the money we are spending on this war we could have done some many other things that would have been more helpful. if we stay in iraq until we win then our 9 billion dollar deficit is going to continue to grow and the dollar will get weaker and weaker. As for Bush, we shouldnt have even gone into iraq after we killed saddam hussein in afghanistan, the reason he went in their was for oil. and soxs u have to realize people in iraq dont want our help and thats why we are not going to win the war, it be much better if we got out of their as soon as possible and started using our money more wisely.

Sorry I'm late to this thread. I'm about to go to sleep, and I will reply to several other posts tomorrow if/when I have time (BTW Sox! A liberal with (half) a brain! I'm impressed that you aren't a total dimwit like so many others in regards to the War in Iraq ). At any rate, if you would like, I can explain tomorrow how: 1) The budget deficit (I think the Budget, after all, you didn't specify which deficit) has very little to do with the dollar strength, and what it does have to do with, is NOT in the manner that you believe; and 2) The Budget Deficit might appear bad on the outside to someone who doesn't understand economics, but I can show you how it is actually beneficial in certain regards.

Desert Demon wrote:

PatsDynasty wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

Desert Demon wrote:

PatsDynasty wrote:

yayanjl wrote:

I want a republican to win... so GO MCCAIN!!!

and BTW, Ron Paul is gay.

how can u want a republican to win, george bush has already fucked up america enough

One of the more ignorant statements I've read.

This supports my view that some people honestly should not be allowed to vote, due to incompetence.

Since when was George W. Bush "the" Republican party? Sure, he's a representative of it as President, but he isn't the epitamy of it.

Politicians join political parties that most resemble what they believe in, so they can advance further; without the political party, unless they have billions of dollars and influence, they won't be elected.

That is why you have politicians who believe in the same things in general in a party, but may have radically differing opinions on specific topics.

In addition, keep in mind that Congress is majority Democrats right now, and Bush is a Republican. In history, with very few exceptions, when one party has presidency and the other has congress, very little gets done. The President stops Congress with vetoes, and Congress doesn't allow the President to get his bills approved.

Ugh shut up PD, Ruskie is right, you just made yourself look like a retard.

In terms of political decisions, I don't think McCain would be a bad president by far, but I simply don't side with conservative views which is why I would vote for Obama (or Clinton if she was the nominee). Clinton has good policies, and I think she would be pretty successful. As for Obama, I have a feeling that he will lead this country really well. He has good ideas, the only thing I don't like of his is that he wants to pull out all our troops out of Iraq in the next year (don't have a source on that, I just remember hearing that). We definitely shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that the damage has been done, if we back out of Iraq, the Middle East will crumble. It has to be a gradual effort over about 3 more years, and we need to make sure the Iraq government is completely stable before we leave. A good comparison is that we went somewhere, made a complete mess, and then leave someone else to clean up after us. The mess should have never been made in the first place, but since we made the mess, we have to clean it up. But at the same time, we have to leave Iraq before 2015, American lives are at stake.

McCain wouldnt be a good president, he wants to stay in iraq until we win, and thats probably a war we r not going to win. Also with all the money we are spending on this war we could have done some many other things that would have been more helpful. if we stay in iraq until we win then our 9 billion dollar deficit is going to continue to grow and the dollar will get weaker and weaker. As for Bush, we shouldnt have even gone into iraq after we killed saddam hussein in afghanistan, the reason he went in their was for oil. and soxs u have to realize people in iraq dont want our help and thats why we are not going to win the war, it be much better if we got out of their as soon as possible and started using our money more wisely.

Sorry I'm late to this thread. I'm about to go to sleep, and I will reply to several other posts tomorrow if/when I have time (BTW Sox! A liberal with (half) a brain! I'm impressed that you aren't a total dimwit like so many others in regards to the War in Iraq ). At any rate, if you would like, I can explain tomorrow how: 1) The budget deficit (I think the Budget, after all, you didn't specify which deficit) has very little to do with the dollar strength, and what it does have to do with, is NOT in the manner that you believe; and 2) The Budget Deficit might appear bad on the outside to someone who doesn't understand economics, but I can show you how it is actually beneficial in certain regards.

Thank you

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

eaglesfan90 wrote:

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

You really don't think he will win?

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

You really don't think he will win?

There is a small chance that he could if some things go his way, but, as of now, I don't foresee Obama or Clinton winning the general election, Clinton is severely hurting Obama too, she has a very limited chance of winning the nomination, and she is still staying in the race, draining Obama's money, energy, and resources that could be better spent campaigning for the general election

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

You really don't think he will win?

There is a small chance that he could if some things go his way, but, as of now, I don't foresee Obama or Clinton winning the general election, Clinton is severely hurting Obama too, she has a very limited chance of winning the nomination, and she is still staying in the race, draining Obama's money, energy, and resources that could be better spent campaigning for the general election

I think he'll win it if he wins the nomination, but it is true that she is really hurting his chances.

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

You really don't think he will win?

There is a small chance that he could if some things go his way, but, as of now, I don't foresee Obama or Clinton winning the general election, Clinton is severely hurting Obama too, she has a very limited chance of winning the nomination, and she is still staying in the race, draining Obama's money, energy, and resources that could be better spent campaigning for the general election

I think he'll win it if he wins the nomination

Why?

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

You really don't think he will win?

There is a small chance that he could if some things go his way, but, as of now, I don't foresee Obama or Clinton winning the general election, Clinton is severely hurting Obama too, she has a very limited chance of winning the nomination, and she is still staying in the race, draining Obama's money, energy, and resources that could be better spent campaigning for the general election

I think he'll win it if he wins the nomination

Why?

I dunno, its just a feeling.

Ron Paul for President!!!

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

You really don't think he will win?

There is a small chance that he could if some things go his way, but, as of now, I don't foresee Obama or Clinton winning the general election, Clinton is severely hurting Obama too, she has a very limited chance of winning the nomination, and she is still staying in the race, draining Obama's money, energy, and resources that could be better spent campaigning for the general election

I think he'll win it if he wins the nomination

Why?

I dunno, its just a feeling.

lol, that doesn't help your credibility when it comes to discussing politics

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

SoxNats08 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

With the exception of a few of you, many people in here are very misinformed and somewhat lost, I would state my opinion on who I want, but, I really don't want to get into a debate with some of you here, all I will say is, though he will not win the presidential election, I support Obama

You really don't think he will win?

There is a small chance that he could if some things go his way, but, as of now, I don't foresee Obama or Clinton winning the general election, Clinton is severely hurting Obama too, she has a very limited chance of winning the nomination, and she is still staying in the race, draining Obama's money, energy, and resources that could be better spent campaigning for the general election

I think he'll win it if he wins the nomination

Why?

I dunno, its just a feeling.

lol, that doesn't help your credibility when it comes to discussing politics

lol thats true.