2008 Presidential Candidate

Silver 'n blackattack has just proved to all of us that he is a 5 year old.

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

Who are the informed ones

and I also support obama so we're buddies

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.

like soxs said i support our troops but not the war

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.

please do explain beucase i have asked my dad about this several times and he told me that our budget defecit make the dollar weaker and BTW he teaches business at havard so im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about.

PatsDynasty wrote:

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.

please do explain beucase i have asked my dad about this several times and he told me that our budget defecit make the dollar weaker and BTW he teaches business at havard so im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about.

Right now I'm lazy and am about to go watch a movie, so I'll give you this site to read over:

http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/25.htm

Pretty accurate, most of it.

And if your father teaches at Harvard, I would have thought that he would teach his son proper grammer and spelling...

At any rate, EVEN if he DOES teach Business at Harvard, does not necessarily mean he has a total grasp and understanding of the world of economics.

Some excerpts from the link:

Quote :

For example if the government spends
deficit money on new highways, trucking will benefit and more jobs
will be produced. When an economic system is in recession all of its
resources are not being used. For example if the government did not
build highways we could not ship goods and there would be less demand
for them. The supply remains low even though we have the ability to
produce more because we cannot ship them. This non-productivity comes
at a cost to the whole economic system. If deficit spending eliminates
non-productivity then its direct monetary cost will be offset if not
surpassed by increased productivity.

Quote :

Running a deficit is apparently good for an economy that is
operating inside its production possibilities curve but it can be
damaging to an economy operating on the curve. A deficit managed
properly has the effect of increasing demands. An economy inside its
curve can increase supplies in reaction.

Quote :

In its current state the U.S. should attempt to
reduce its deficit but eliminating it is not necessary and could do
more damage than good.

But honestly, read the whole article, gives both sides of the argument and explains how economics and the budget deficit works.

DD, please refrain from making those comments about PD's father and teaching him grammar. That is trolling. If I see it again it's a warning.

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

name names

Desert Demon wrote:

PatsDynasty wrote:

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.

please do explain beucase i have asked my dad about this several times and he told me that our budget defecit make the dollar weaker and BTW he teaches business at havard so im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about.

Right now I'm lazy and am about to go watch a movie, so I'll give you this site to read over:

http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/25.htm

Pretty accurate, most of it.

And if your father teaches at Harvard, I would have thought that he would teach his son proper grammer and spelling...

At any rate, EVEN if he DOES teach Business at Harvard, does not necessarily mean he has a total grasp and understanding of the world of economics.

Some excerpts from the link:

Quote :

For example if the government spends
deficit money on new highways, trucking will benefit and more jobs
will be produced. When an economic system is in recession all of its
resources are not being used. For example if the government did not
build highways we could not ship goods and there would be less demand
for them. The supply remains low even though we have the ability to
produce more because we cannot ship them. This non-productivity comes
at a cost to the whole economic system. If deficit spending eliminates
non-productivity then its direct monetary cost will be offset if not
surpassed by increased productivity.

Quote :

Running a deficit is apparently good for an economy that is
operating inside its production possibilities curve but it can be
damaging to an economy operating on the curve. A deficit managed
properly has the effect of increasing demands. An economy inside its
curve can increase supplies in reaction.

Quote :

In its current state the U.S. should attempt to
reduce its deficit but eliminating it is not necessary and could do
more damage than good.

But honestly, read the whole article, gives both sides of the argument and explains how economics and the budget deficit works.

i read the whole article and at the end this is what i saw:

Quote :

The U.S.’s deficit is bad at this point because the
U.S. is close to its maximum production capabilities, and deficit
money is being wasted

right now, our budget deficit is looking like a bad thing, the affects its had on the economy has been negative and im sure that many people believe that the deficit is bad too. as for my grammar and spelling i know its pretty bad but some of those were just typos so...

PatsDynasty wrote:

Desert Demon wrote:

PatsDynasty wrote:

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.

please do explain beucase i have asked my dad about this several times and he told me that our budget defecit make the dollar weaker and BTW he teaches business at havard so im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about.

Right now I'm lazy and am about to go watch a movie, so I'll give you this site to read over:

http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/25.htm

Pretty accurate, most of it.

And if your father teaches at Harvard, I would have thought that he would teach his son proper grammer and spelling...

At any rate, EVEN if he DOES teach Business at Harvard, does not necessarily mean he has a total grasp and understanding of the world of economics.

Some excerpts from the link:

Quote :

For example if the government spends
deficit money on new highways, trucking will benefit and more jobs
will be produced. When an economic system is in recession all of its
resources are not being used. For example if the government did not
build highways we could not ship goods and there would be less demand
for them. The supply remains low even though we have the ability to
produce more because we cannot ship them. This non-productivity comes
at a cost to the whole economic system. If deficit spending eliminates
non-productivity then its direct monetary cost will be offset if not
surpassed by increased productivity.

Quote :

Running a deficit is apparently good for an economy that is
operating inside its production possibilities curve but it can be
damaging to an economy operating on the curve. A deficit managed
properly has the effect of increasing demands. An economy inside its
curve can increase supplies in reaction.

Quote :

In its current state the U.S. should attempt to
reduce its deficit but eliminating it is not necessary and could do
more damage than good.

But honestly, read the whole article, gives both sides of the argument and explains how economics and the budget deficit works.

i read the whole article and at the end this is what i saw:

Quote :

The U.S.’s deficit is bad at this point because the
U.S. is close to its maximum production capabilities, and deficit
money is being wasted

right now, our budget deficit is looking like a bad thing, the affects its had on the economy has been negative and im sure that many people believe that the deficit is bad too. as for my grammar and spelling i know its pretty bad but some of those were just typos so...

Yes, but...

Quote :

In its current state the U.S. should attempt to
reduce its deficit but eliminating it is not necessary and could do
more damage than good.

Hence, while right now it is bad, it isn't nearly THAT bad - It's largely due to us working very close to the production curve.

In addition, read the green font. I didn't outright say "Deficit isn't bad", I merely stated that it is beneficial in some regards and I proved that.

Yayanjl care to explain why Ron Paul is gay?

I would vote Hillary. The republicans have really screwed up these past 8 years, and Obama is too inexperienced. For anyone who cares, the only 2 bills that Obama has passed have to do with dental care.

I'm in model UN, I will win this debate

mksadng wrote:

Yayanjl care to explain why Ron Paul is gay?

Care to explain while it matters?, if we are going to have an intelligable conversation about politics, we must keep race/ethnicity/sexual preference/sex out of the discussion

superskin6 wrote:

I would vote Hillary. The republicans have really screwed up these past 8 years, and Obama is too inexperienced. For anyone who cares, the only 2 bills that Obama has passed have to do with dental care.

I'm in model UN, I will win this debate

yeah....

Barack Obama
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.

Hilary Clinton
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.

Sure, Hilary has been the first lady, but get real, god damn, she was just the first lady, what political expertise/responsibility do they need?, the whole experience thing is overblown because that's part of her campaign!

Desert Demon wrote:

PatsDynasty wrote:

Desert Demon wrote:

PatsDynasty wrote:

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.

please do explain beucase i have asked my dad about this several times and he told me that our budget defecit make the dollar weaker and BTW he teaches business at havard so im pretty sure he knows what hes talking about.

Right now I'm lazy and am about to go watch a movie, so I'll give you this site to read over:

http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/25.htm

Pretty accurate, most of it.

And if your father teaches at Harvard, I would have thought that he would teach his son proper grammer and spelling...

At any rate, EVEN if he DOES teach Business at Harvard, does not necessarily mean he has a total grasp and understanding of the world of economics.

Some excerpts from the link:

Quote :

For example if the government spends
deficit money on new highways, trucking will benefit and more jobs
will be produced. When an economic system is in recession all of its
resources are not being used. For example if the government did not
build highways we could not ship goods and there would be less demand
for them. The supply remains low even though we have the ability to
produce more because we cannot ship them. This non-productivity comes
at a cost to the whole economic system. If deficit spending eliminates
non-productivity then its direct monetary cost will be offset if not
surpassed by increased productivity.

Quote :

Running a deficit is apparently good for an economy that is
operating inside its production possibilities curve but it can be
damaging to an economy operating on the curve. A deficit managed
properly has the effect of increasing demands. An economy inside its
curve can increase supplies in reaction.

Quote :

In its current state the U.S. should attempt to
reduce its deficit but eliminating it is not necessary and could do
more damage than good.

But honestly, read the whole article, gives both sides of the argument and explains how economics and the budget deficit works.

i read the whole article and at the end this is what i saw:

Quote :

The U.S.’s deficit is bad at this point because the
U.S. is close to its maximum production capabilities, and deficit
money is being wasted

right now, our budget deficit is looking like a bad thing, the affects its had on the economy has been negative and im sure that many people believe that the deficit is bad too. as for my grammar and spelling i know its pretty bad but some of those were just typos so...

Yes, but...

Quote :

In its current state the U.S. should attempt to
reduce its deficit but eliminating it is not necessary and could do
more damage than good.

Hence, while right now it is bad, it isn't nearly THAT bad - It's largely due to us working very close to the production curve.

In addition, read the green font. I didn't outright say "Deficit isn't bad", I merely stated that it is beneficial in some regards and I proved that.

ok, but overall do u think the deficit is good for us or not?

eaglesfan90 wrote:

mksadng wrote:

Yayanjl care to explain why Ron Paul is gay?

Care to explain while it matters?, if we are going to have an intelligable conversation about politics, we must keep race/ethnicity/sexual preference/sex out of the discussion

I think it was him saying he doesnt like Ron Paul and id like to know why, its none of your concern so please stay out of it.

eaglesfan90 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

I would vote Hillary. The republicans have really screwed up these past 8 years, and Obama is too inexperienced. For anyone who cares, the only 2 bills that Obama has passed have to do with dental care.

I'm in model UN, I will win this debate

yeah....

Barack Obama
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.

Hilary Clinton
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.

Sure, Hilary has been the first lady, but get real, god damn, she was just the first lady, what political expertise/responsibility do they need?, the whole experience thing is overblown because that's part of her campaign!

well, it's like in a play, when the lead gets hurt, the understudy steps in. Clinton has 5 more years of senate expeirence, and she's watched her husband do it for 8 years. Not to mention, she'll have an experienced man right on her side, who knows what he's doing, and can guide her through it.

superskin6 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

I would vote Hillary. The republicans have really screwed up these past 8 years, and Obama is too inexperienced. For anyone who cares, the only 2 bills that Obama has passed have to do with dental care.

I'm in model UN, I will win this debate

yeah....

Barack Obama
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.

Hilary Clinton
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.

Sure, Hilary has been the first lady, but get real, god damn, she was just the first lady, what political expertise/responsibility do they need?, the whole experience thing is overblown because that's part of her campaign!

well, it's like in a play, when the lead gets hurt, the understudy steps in. Clinton has 5 more years of senate expeirence, and she's watched her husband do it for 8 years. Not to mention, she'll have an experienced man right on her side, who knows what he's doing, and can guide her through it.

I agree with what you guys both said, but frankly, Clinton does not have the qualities needed to be a good president. Both of her and Obama's plans are very very similar, so it boils down to people skills, and Obama has the edge.

He can confront the public in a way Hillary can never do, and although it may sound like empty rhetoric, that is the stuff that the greatest Presidents used to guide their consituents through tough times.

Obama can handle issues with grace and isn't afraid to admit his mistakes. It took Clinton ages to apologize with her incorrect Iraq war vote and the whole Bosnia lie. Obama has faced much more difficult campaign setbacks yet has very well overcome them.

I just see a much better president in Obama when I compare both candidates without bias.

Nerd85 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

I would vote Hillary. The republicans have really screwed up these past 8 years, and Obama is too inexperienced. For anyone who cares, the only 2 bills that Obama has passed have to do with dental care.

I'm in model UN, I will win this debate

yeah....

Barack Obama
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.

Hilary Clinton
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.

Sure, Hilary has been the first lady, but get real, god damn, she was just the first lady, what political expertise/responsibility do they need?, the whole experience thing is overblown because that's part of her campaign!

well, it's like in a play, when the lead gets hurt, the understudy steps in. Clinton has 5 more years of senate expeirence, and she's watched her husband do it for 8 years. Not to mention, she'll have an experienced man right on her side, who knows what he's doing, and can guide her through it.

I agree with what you guys both said, but frankly, Clinton does not have the qualities needed to be a good president. Both of her and Obama's plans are very very similar, so it boils down to people skills, and Obama has the edge.

He can confront the public in a way Hillary can never do, and although it may sound like empty rhetoric, that is the stuff that the greatest Presidents used to guide their consituents through tough times.

Obama can handle issues with grace and isn't afraid to admit his mistakes. It took Clinton ages to apologize with her incorrect Iraq war vote and the whole Bosnia lie. Obama has faced much more difficult campaign setbacks yet has very well overcome them.

I just see a much better president in Obama when I compare both candidates without bias.

Understood, but the people aren't going to like a president who can only pass dental care bills

superskin6 wrote:

Nerd85 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

I would vote Hillary. The republicans have really screwed up these past 8 years, and Obama is too inexperienced. For anyone who cares, the only 2 bills that Obama has passed have to do with dental care.

I'm in model UN, I will win this debate

yeah....

Barack Obama
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.

Hilary Clinton
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.

Sure, Hilary has been the first lady, but get real, god damn, she was just the first lady, what political expertise/responsibility do they need?, the whole experience thing is overblown because that's part of her campaign!

well, it's like in a play, when the lead gets hurt, the understudy steps in. Clinton has 5 more years of senate expeirence, and she's watched her husband do it for 8 years. Not to mention, she'll have an experienced man right on her side, who knows what he's doing, and can guide her through it.

I agree with what you guys both said, but frankly, Clinton does not have the qualities needed to be a good president. Both of her and Obama's plans are very very similar, so it boils down to people skills, and Obama has the edge.

He can confront the public in a way Hillary can never do, and although it may sound like empty rhetoric, that is the stuff that the greatest Presidents used to guide their consituents through tough times.

Obama can handle issues with grace and isn't afraid to admit his mistakes. It took Clinton ages to apologize with her incorrect Iraq war vote and the whole Bosnia lie. Obama has faced much more difficult campaign setbacks yet has very well overcome them.

I just see a much better president in Obama when I compare both candidates without bias.

Understood, but the people aren't going to like a president who can only pass dental care bills

Well according to the polls apparently they do...

Nerd85 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

Nerd85 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

superskin6 wrote:

I would vote Hillary. The republicans have really screwed up these past 8 years, and Obama is too inexperienced. For anyone who cares, the only 2 bills that Obama has passed have to do with dental care.

I'm in model UN, I will win this debate

yeah....

Barack Obama
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2005-present
Keynote Speaker, 2004 Democratic National Convention
Senator, Illinois State Senate, 1996-2004.

Hilary Clinton
Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 2000-present
First Lady, President Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
First Lady, State of Arkansas, 1978-1980, 1982-1992.

Sure, Hilary has been the first lady, but get real, god damn, she was just the first lady, what political expertise/responsibility do they need?, the whole experience thing is overblown because that's part of her campaign!

well, it's like in a play, when the lead gets hurt, the understudy steps in. Clinton has 5 more years of senate expeirence, and she's watched her husband do it for 8 years. Not to mention, she'll have an experienced man right on her side, who knows what he's doing, and can guide her through it.

I agree with what you guys both said, but frankly, Clinton does not have the qualities needed to be a good president. Both of her and Obama's plans are very very similar, so it boils down to people skills, and Obama has the edge.

He can confront the public in a way Hillary can never do, and although it may sound like empty rhetoric, that is the stuff that the greatest Presidents used to guide their consituents through tough times.

Obama can handle issues with grace and isn't afraid to admit his mistakes. It took Clinton ages to apologize with her incorrect Iraq war vote and the whole Bosnia lie. Obama has faced much more difficult campaign setbacks yet has very well overcome them.

I just see a much better president in Obama when I compare both candidates without bias.

Understood, but the people aren't going to like a president who can only pass dental care bills

Well according to the polls apparently they do...

The way Obama speaks is great. It's the fact that there's no substance behind the thoughts. It's the same thing over, and over again. And not from speech to speech, from paragraph, to paragraph. He's like a robot, kind of.

Ron Paul

Well, this is my look at it (for Desert Demon for calling my post "ignorant")

I do not want a democrat in because they promote pulling troops out of Iraq which is a horrible mistake because Iraq still needs our help. If we left them in the dust, I believe fightings would occur in Iraq soon causing a mess like what just happened with Uganda, a genocide. We need to stay in Iraq until we can get them set up with a democracy. (And for the record, I'd rather have Clinton as president rather than Obama, she has more experience as a politician.)

I do not want Ron Paul because he promotes smaller, state governments which allows states to have more power. I do not believe that will work, as the Articles of Confederation showed was not possible. The states did not understand how to use the power shown in history which is why the Constitutional Convention happened. We put in place a stable government which works, why change it? He also promotes pulling troops out of Iraq which is another downside.

I believe John McCain is a great candidate because he is a true Republican but goes with what he believes the right thing is to do. He wants to keep troops in Iraq just like Bush does. The Republican party has shown true leadership with making all the right moves in several topics such as Iraq.

There ya go This took me 45 minutes because I did a LOT of research.

mksadng wrote:

eaglesfan90 wrote:

mksadng wrote:

Yayanjl care to explain why Ron Paul is gay?

Care to explain while it matters?, if we are going to have an intelligable conversation about politics, we must keep race/ethnicity/sexual preference/sex out of the discussion

I think it was him saying he doesnt like Ron Paul and id like to know why, its none of your concern so please stay out of it.

Do it through a PM if you want no one else jumping in, this is a public forum and we are trying to have an intelligent conversation about politics, when you bring someone's sexual preference into the mix when talking politics, it turns to ignorance.