Funny clip of Obama:
http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
Change you can believe in...or maybe not
Started by
Connor MacLeod
, Aug 02 2008 06:28 AM
13 replies to this topic
sponsored ad
-
- Advert
#7
-
- Guest
- 443 posts
- 7 ₮
Posted 10 August 2008 - 01:05 PM
Yeah, you guys are right. Obama doesn't have the experience to be the next president of the United States. But then again, neither does John McCain, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, nor Ralph Nader.
The thing is, I trust Obama to pick it up most quickly, and put the right people in place to do the best they can at an impossible job.
He definitely wasn't planning on running for President back then. I think he only decided to run before he was planning to 1. because hillary was weak, and 2. because hillary would have been a horrible president.
The thing is, I trust Obama to pick it up most quickly, and put the right people in place to do the best they can at an impossible job.
He definitely wasn't planning on running for President back then. I think he only decided to run before he was planning to 1. because hillary was weak, and 2. because hillary would have been a horrible president.
#8
-
- Guest
- 1,195 posts
- 65 ₮
- Location:Austin, Tx
Posted 10 August 2008 - 04:56 PM
The less experience that they have the more i 'trust' them (there would be a negative correlation between exp and trust).Yeah, you guys are right. Obama doesn't have the experience to be the next president of the United States. But then again, neither does John McCain, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, nor Ralph Nader.
My thing is I don't trust any of those scoundrels. (Except Ron Paul)The thing is, I trust Obama to pick it up most quickly...
#10
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 619 posts
- 46 ₮
Posted 11 August 2008 - 11:32 AM
I think he only decided to run before he was planning to 1. because hillary was weak, and 2. because hillary would have been a horrible president.
I suspect Hillary Clinton would have probably fared at least as well against McCain as Obama will. Also, I see no a priori reason to think she would have been a horrible presdent - her husband did a pretty decent job and I don't imagine she would have governed all that differently.
#11
-
- Life Member, Guardian
- 8,116 posts
- 242 ₮
- Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York
- ✔
Posted 11 August 2008 - 11:55 AM
I suspect Hillary Clinton would have probably fared at least as well against McCain as Obama will. Also, I see no a priori reason to think she would have been a horrible presdent - her husband did a pretty decent job and I don't imagine she would have governed all that differently.
I strongly disagree, Hilary is entirely competent but a far worse lightning rod than Obama for mobilizing the Evangelical and disaffected right wing. Obama is disliked and mistrusted by many on the right (as are most politicians BTW) but Hilary is viscerally hated. I have lived in the South and many people there would crawl on their hands and knees in a blizzard to the polls to vote against Hillary if she was running against a goat.
The two-fer argument was a bad idea in principle and should not have been applied, it works with former Clinton supporters but was counter productive with independents and had only negative results with the opposition.
Anyway she would make a strong and better Supreme Court Justice (than President) if Obama gets the chance to nominate.
#12
-
- Guest
- 16,276 posts
- 1,999 ₮
- Location:Philadelphia
Posted 12 August 2008 - 05:11 AM
But Ron Paul is the only one (except maybe Keyes, I dunno) that is a creationist. That exempts him from consideration as far as I'm concerned.The less experience that they have the more i 'trust' them (there would be a negative correlation between exp and trust).Yeah, you guys are right. Obama doesn't have the experience to be the next president of the United States. But then again, neither does John McCain, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, nor Ralph Nader.
My thing is I don't trust any of those scoundrels. (Except Ron Paul)The thing is, I trust Obama to pick it up most quickly...
#13
-
- Guest
- 1,195 posts
- 65 ₮
- Location:Austin, Tx
Posted 12 August 2008 - 07:05 AM
Why should it matter? He commented (and I agree) that it was more or less inappropriate to ask during a presidential debate. Ron says that it is a scientific question; specifically "I would think that its an interesting discussion... I think its fine and we can have our beliefs... If that were the issue of the day then I wouldn't be running for public office." While I of course disagree with Dr.Paul's conclusion on evolution, more importantly I agree that it is a non-issue for the president. As a practicing doctor, Dr.Paul is clearly not opposed to the use of technology or the persuit of science.But Ron Paul is the only one (except maybe Keyes, I dunno) that is a creationist. That exempts him from consideration as far as I'm concerned.The less experience that they have the more i 'trust' them (there would be a negative correlation between exp and trust).Yeah, you guys are right. Obama doesn't have the experience to be the next president of the United States. But then again, neither does John McCain, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, nor Ralph Nader.
My thing is I don't trust any of those scoundrels. (Except Ron Paul)The thing is, I trust Obama to pick it up most quickly...
Ron Paul is committed to the seperation of church and state.. which is what I care about. I find it unfortunate that this would be a deal breaker for someone as intelligent as yourself niner. There are such bigger issues that he is so right on about. If there were two identical candidates: Ron Paul and a Ron Paul clone that supported evolution then I would be inclined to pick the later. Perhaps a day will come to pick those kind of nits, but that day isn't today imo.
Edited by lucid, 12 August 2008 - 07:06 AM.
#14
-
- Guest
- 519 posts
- -0 ₮
Posted 21 August 2008 - 04:59 AM
Quoting from a Ron Paul newsletter written under his name:
"The criminals who terrorize our cities .. are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power", to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man".
... Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) -- and then complained about poor service."
Also included in other Ron Paul newsletters from the 1980's - 1990's were rants against gays, AIDS victims, and Martin Luther King. After these letters resurfaced in 2008, Paul (disingenuously) "repudiated" them. A decade or two too late.
And then there was this remark he made, and actually defended when called on it:
"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He elaborated on this by saying further, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."
Apparently, anyone who supports welfare or affirmative action is not a "decent person". In fact, in Paul's mind, they are apparently criminals.
"The criminals who terrorize our cities .. are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power", to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man".
... Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) -- and then complained about poor service."
Also included in other Ron Paul newsletters from the 1980's - 1990's were rants against gays, AIDS victims, and Martin Luther King. After these letters resurfaced in 2008, Paul (disingenuously) "repudiated" them. A decade or two too late.
And then there was this remark he made, and actually defended when called on it:
"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He elaborated on this by saying further, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."
Apparently, anyone who supports welfare or affirmative action is not a "decent person". In fact, in Paul's mind, they are apparently criminals.
Edited by TianZi, 21 August 2008 - 05:09 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
