McCain or Obama?

Which Canidate do you want to win the election?

  • McCain

    Votes: 54 36.2%
  • Obama

    Votes: 95 63.8%

  • Total voters
    149
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn't America have a multi-trillion dollar debt? How can anyone honestly justify tax cuts when the government is already in the red?

Also: I'm not voting, but if I were, I would not be voting for Obama, since he took Knight Rider off the air tonight to advertise. Grr.
 
...I'm not voting, but if I were, I would not be voting for Obama, since he took Knight Rider off the air tonight to advertise. Grr.

He pushed back the World Series half an hour too. That confirms he's a Communist!
 
Doesn't America have a multi-trillion dollar debt? How can anyone honestly justify tax cuts when the government is already in the red?

The problem is not whether taxes are cut, increased, or left alone. The only way to get the national debt down is to do some massive cuts in government spending.
 
Well, the enlighten one has spoken to us via his infomercial. I guess we all now need to wait for the "mothership" to appear and then we can all sing "cume bye yah." People talk how GW Bush put Amercia in the crapper, wait until the "elighten one" gets done with it. Mark my words.... I think I will move back to Wales.
 
I feel like it takes quite a bit of intelligence to play Orbiter. Yes, it's fun, but, still we need to be able to use our brains to play the game.

I don't understand why intelligent people would favor Obama. If any of you understand economics,human nature, or general morality, know that he is a polished package which is managing to fool everyone.

The reason we are having so many problems in our country is largely because of Bill Clinton. He was someone who didn't always do the right thing, he wavered to what was popular. He is the reason our economy collapsed(Freddy Mac, Sally Mae, Free Trade Agreements, China's Economy Dominating Our Own). Obama is the same sort of person.

His concept of change is a sloganistic blank slate which is completely undefined, except that it is change from George Bush.
 
Obama's fundraising seems actually to be reminiscent of that by the Clintons (and Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore).

Actually, he did just do what McCain was too immobile to do - he mobilized people. If you like to study PR strategies, Obama should really impress you, as he used ideas, which had been straight from the scientific conferences. McCain relied on ideas, which had been state of the art when Nixon was campaigning for presidency.

So, did Obama did something illegal? Did he profit from the crimes of people who claim to support him? Palin for example did directly profit from her "crimes" or the crimes of her peers.

Spicer: If you have the intelligence, you should wonder why Obama is the only guy who really shows activity and the will to become president.

Clinton was bad? Clinton was the best president you had since Reagan. Maybe you have not yet gotten the distance to overcome your political conditioning, but the Bush's had been both phases of stagnation. I would even say, the younger Bush was even a long phase of democratically intended decline - voting him once can be considered a misinterpretation of his character, voting him twice has to be explained as: You wanted it that way.

Obama is sure not able to walk on water or turn water into wine, and he is sure not able to make people, who did criminal acts already when campaigning for republican candidates, become good guys.

But he is able to inspire and mobilize people. Something which is important for a president. And he does already play the president far better, as many other candidates in the last 20 years. You can believe all lies about him, or you can believe the lies Obama uses in his campaigns ("McCain Bombing China...". well, maybe just a small lie). But what finally is left is the choice between a old caricature of a republican candidate and a young upstart who attempts to dance on the top of the wave.

If you vote McCain, you want stagnation. No strong changes, many compromises with Bush and his allies. If you vote Obama, you get a candidate who promises changes - and who will do them. To the better or the worse, nobody can tell now. He has good ideas, but a good idea at the wrong time is a bad idea.

Also, all people who currently can only do the chant of the "Beware of the communist", are IMHO stuck in the McCarthy years. If you want back into 1950, just say so. But the real rise to greatness of the USA happened in 1960 - when presidents had been able to sell the product.
 
Actually, he did just do what McCain was too immobile to do - he mobilized people. If you like to study PR strategies, Obama should really impress you, as he used ideas, which had been straight from the scientific conferences. McCain relied on ideas, which had been state of the art when Nixon was campaigning for presidency.

Obama's skill at advertising himself, is not sufficient to demonstrate that he would be a good President. What concerns me, is not whether he can get popular support for his ideas, but instead what his ideas are. His ideas represent governmental arrogance, a failure to recognize the value of American liberty and the Constitutional system that sustains it. That he can campaign effectively, is much worse than irrelevant, in comparison to that.

So, did Obama did something illegal?

Uncertain. It has been documented that he has received a large amount of campaign funding, from foreign sources - which, as far as I know, is illegal.

Clinton was bad? Clinton was the best president you had since Reagan.

Clinton was corrupt (as well as being enormously cynical) - so corrupt, that he was impeached for it (and fined and disbarred as a lawyer). Perhaps you remember the somewhat recent "scandal" involving Eliot Spitzer, the New York Governor who resigned after he was found to have been a client-supporter of prostitution, while having the professional obligation, instead, to prohibit prostitution. What Clinton did, was similar, but worse inasmuch as involving an essential function of government and an essential professional obligation of the U.S. President: an obligation to prohibit acts of intended deception of courts of law. This is an essential obligation, since courts require accurate knowledge of the facts of a case, as well as accurate knowledge of applicable law, in order to produce an accurate, logical conclusion wrt what the law requires in a particular case; such a conclusion is "justice," and it is the principal function of courts and of government, generally.

Clinton intentionally acted to deceive a court - to cheat at a lawsuit, in order to prevail in it. Thus, he acted with intent to cause the court to have an inaccurate understanding of the facts of the case, so that its conclusion would be logically unsound; such a conclusion is "injustice" (false justice), and it is what Mr. Clinton sought to produce while being the person holding the professional office of public trust, the purpose of which office, is to do the opposite. This is "professional corruption," and it does not represent the behavior of a "best President."

Anyway, like Obama, Clinton (and Gore) cynically sought and received considerable amounts of campaign funding, from foreign sources.

what finally is left is the choice between a old caricature of a republican candidate and a young upstart who attempts to dance on the top of the wave.

[...]

Also, all people who currently can only do the chant of the "Beware of the communist", are IMHO stuck in the McCarthy years. If you want back into 1950, just say so. But the real rise to greatness of the USA happened in 1960 - when presidents had been able to sell the product.

"Dancing on top of the wave" is a skill characteristic of demagogues, and it represents no essential U.S. Presidential requirement. Communism was (and continues to be) a horrible economic system that resulted in more than 100,000,000 human deaths, and a great amount of other human suffering, in the 20th Century - arguably, the greatest evil in all of human history; to disparage critical opposition to it, as being "stuck in the McCarthy years" or "want[ing] back into 1950," is an attempt at demogoguery, only (well, maybe foolishness, also). The USA was not designed to be a land of "greatness" (nor a land of satisfaction or intrinsically of economic prosperity); it was designed to be a land of Liberty. Any noteworthy prosperity that has been enjoyed by Americans, can to a considerable extent be attributed to that, since prosperity cannot be a governmental regulatory product, but is, instead, a naturally human pursuit (and perhaps product, if there is freedom to pursue it).
 
Clinton was not impeached for "corruption", that is revanchist what you do there. He was impeached for having too much fun in office. And not even that was enough. He had too much fun in office and lied about it under oath.

Whitewater was not corruption, but insider trading (A crime, Bush & Cheney are masters of). And both Clintons had been considered innocent afterwards, even though just because there was not enough evidence to say otherwise. Innocent until proved guilty is an important thing, which keeps YOU out of prison.

Communism did not cause 100 million human deaths. That number is popularly quoted, but wrong. The same way, you could claim capitalism caused 500 million deaths - and be as wrong as before. Also, it did not cause the biggest suffering in the 20th century - again, you rewrite history to suit your claims:

The biggest suffering was caused by fascism. By far. The second biggest was the cold war, which was capitalism vs communism.

Finally, you rarely had communism in the world, but usually a dictatorship of the communist party. Both is not the same.

Finally: You don't know what a demagogue is.

Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.

McCain and Obama are both demagogues in the wider sense, both by different ways. McCain addresses fears and prejudices, Obama emotions and expectations. Of course, both are no pure demagogues - they both just use demagogue methods in their election campaigns.

Which is necessary. You won't become a leading politician inside a democracy without public support, which you need to mobilize. if you don't like it, burn your constitution.
 
Communism did not cause 100 million human deaths. That number is popularly quoted, but wrong. The same way, you could claim capitalism caused 500 million deaths - and be as wrong as before. Also, it did not cause the biggest suffering in the 20th century - again, you rewrite history to suit your claims:

The biggest suffering was caused by fascism. By far. The second biggest was the cold war, which was capitalism vs communism.

World War II death total:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people, making it the deadliest and most destructive war in human history. The civilian toll was around 47 million, including 20 million deaths due to war-related famine and disease. The military toll was about 25 million, including the deaths of about 4 million prisoners of war in captivity. The Allies lost approximately 61 million people, and the Axis powers lost 11 million.
Stalin's death total:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Certainly, it appears a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths—4 million by repression and 6 million from famine — are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a likely total of around 20 million.[58] Adding 6–8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a total of between 15 and 17 million victims. Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[59] Others continue to maintain their earlier much higher estimates are correct.[60]
Mao's death total (just from the "Great Leap Forward"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequences

The Great Leap Forward is now widely seen, both within China and outside as a major economic disaster, effectively being a "Great Leap Backward" that would affect China in the years to come. As inflated statistics reached planning authorities, orders were given to divert human resources into industry rather than agriculture. The official toll of excess deaths recorded in China for the years of the GLF is 14 million, but scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million [1].
Khmer Rouge death total:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Number_of_deaths

Modern research has located thousands of mass graves from the Khmer Rouge era all over Cambodia, containing an estimated 1.39 million bodies. Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and 3,000,000, most commonly between 1.4 million and 2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions, and the rest from starvation and disease.[7]
Using just these three examples, communism gets close to the death toll from World War II. But see:

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/communistbodycount.php

which puts the death toll from communism at just under 150 million, using "mid-estimates."

Given that Marxism continues to be a very much living and influential ideology, these matters don't seem irrelevant to me.
 
And how do you account Deaths caused by capitalism? The number of deaths caused by slavery in the USA and England alone is estimated to be between 10 and 60 million deaths.

Only because Stalinism and other forms of tyranny (Juche) cause deaths by government activity, these can hardly be attributed to be "Death by communism" - communism and rule of the communist party have little in common. And how can you account deaths by government inactivity (which the capitalist world view is full of?)

And these examples have very little to do with a candidate of a democratic party in the USA, who does not even pretend socialism. Social programs are not socialism... Otherwise, even England would be a socialist paradise. And Chavez already a deep red communist instead of a guy with so bad manners, that his people love him, because he is their guy with bad manners.

Which brings us to McCain - how many people support him, because he is their guy with bad manners?
 
Clinton was not impeached for "corruption", that is revanchist what you do there. He was impeached for having too much fun in office. And not even that was enough. He had too much fun in office and lied about it under oath.

President Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
 
He was not impeached - they tried to... and failed in a hollywoodescue way. The Star report was more an example of how you can blow up a small thing into something big and ugly. For most other presidents in history, the same episode was actually kept hidden as good as possible, but I would say, when you can't fight somebody politically, because your own party is politically even worse as the democratic party, you need a new battlefield. And when it comes to moral absolutism and hypocrisy, nothing beats the republican party.

His legacy will be Lewinsky, but still... better as being the president who was paralyzed in public by the shock of 911.


-----Posted Added-----


And regardless what the hell we are discussing here:

 
He was not impeached - they tried to... and failed in a hollywoodescue way.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury but was not found guilty. Impeached just means that they had an impeachment trial.
 
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury but was not found guilty. Impeached just means that they had an impeachment trial.

That is like saying you are a murderer, because you had been accused of murder.
 
Ah... just read the definition of the term impeachment. Impeachment is the process, not the punishment.

So, when you are impeached, you are just accused, but guilty until proved innocent still applies.

Looks like the standards for getting impeached are pretty low inside the USA, compared to other countries - the similar process in Germany ("Präsidentenanklage") is so hard to start, that politicians prefer the bureaucratic solution ("Organstreitklage" - institution conflict) if they disagree with the way a president does his job.
 
Duh!!! I just want to say one thing... would you mind if i said it?

I swear that i'll neuter myself if OSSAMA (NOT OBAMA) Bin Laden appears again in other video just one day before the elections AND this fact changes the results of these elections... The north-americans in some aspects are sooooooooooooooooo maleable, and (excuse me for the expression) stupids in some degree, because they don't have critical reasonement capacity.

I remember 4 years ago, when John Kerry was about to win the elections this year and ONE DAY before the elections the FBI released a video showing a Bin-Laden saying that "the results of this elections and your future will be due your (american) own criteria"... well... this :censored: video brought the world just where it's now. Judge yourselves.

AH!! If i could vote, i'll vote for Obama, even if some republican would point a nuclear warhead to my head when i'm voting :tounge:
 
Last edited:
You can be sure, Osama will come back. ;) If not exactly before the elections, he will appear only hours late, because a Al-Jazeera intern sorted the mail from Pakistan in the wrong box.

Also, you can be sure, the main reason why Osama is still alive and not found in a tiny hole, is that he still does what the MIC tells him. ;)
 
slim chance on the public here not being mislead... Here the emotion voids reason for most...
but on Clinton... he lied because he thought it was no one's business when his knob was polished... the Republicans impeached him and then closed the government a few times while doing it...
He lied that he "did not have sex with that woman"...one sort of lie costing laundry and a bunch of morbid righteous inquiry. Kenneth Starr any one? Expenses of great magnitude because "dear Lord how can this go on?"
That is one type of lie.
Another type of lie is;
He has weapons of mass destruction and the evidence could be a mushroom cloud" costing thousands of lives and say 600 billion dollars...

PICK YOU LESSER EVIL.
If you chose Bush... well... AD HOMINEM TO YOU... he he he

If you chose Clinton... Sir let's party. :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top