EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
BlackJack
United States10495 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10495 Posts
On January 28 2008 00:27 a-game wrote: did you see his iowa victory speech? wasn't nearly as good imo. was way too preachy. he ended almost every sentence in like an exhale. I hate that. Kind of like MLK with a Bill Clinton twang to it. This speech he was much more stern and much more commanding. The first speech was "Give us a chance" and this speech was "Don't tell us we can't change!" | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
ad: @blackjack - ok was just curious =) | ||
|
MenzieK
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On January 28 2008 02:53 MenzieK wrote: WTF? Why is Gulliani, Mccain, and Huckabee there but not Ron paul? The guy actaully own Lousiana and has more experience, knowledge about how to run this fucking country then any of the Republican mainstream Republican candidates. I mean c'mon a-game, why on earth would you actaully Gulliani, of all people a chance? Do you know anything about Gulliani or Mccain for that matter? I would guess that it's because he doesn't get half as much air-time as others. The majority of the USA are not internet savvy. My dad and his girlfriend, for example, only know about the folks they see on FOX news (only use the internet for email), which is bias to start with, so naturally they are voting for Gulliani (if only they saw and read half the shit we do about this idiot and his 9/11 milking). Ron Paul on the other hand has had like, what, one interview on TV that was worth a damn? He's old and takes a long time to say what he wants to say, so he gets cuts off and fucked with, unfortunately. The whole process is really frustrating. On the other hand I'm pretty pleased to see that Obama has a high chance. I've read and watched a lot about him, and to me he seems to be the real deal. Even if you're a little nuts or fucked up, being honest is everything... and him and Ron Paul just hit me as honest guys. And with the idiots running at the moment, that's all it takes for my vote. | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
'Liberal Lion' Ted Kennedy To Back Obama Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it. Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support. That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said. The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama's call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama. The scoop was first reported by Time's Mark Halperin and confirmed by CNN. Suzanne Malveaux reported: "This is really big and very big for Barack Obama. Senator Ted kennedy...is a giant in the party. A Clinton campaign source told me the Clinton campaign is in fact expecting it. Already a senior aide from the Clinton campaign reacting on the record to the news that they expect. 'They have been friends,' Senator Clinton and Kennedy, 'for a long time and Senator Clinton has a lot of respect for Senator Kennedy.' ... This is really kind of extraordinary when you think about the relationship between the Clintons and the Kennedys, the kind of personal relationship that the two have. Obviously this is a very big win for Barack Obama." Kennedy is one of two potential superstar Dem endorsements -- the other being Al Gore. Read Halperin's report here. Caroline Kennedy, daughter of JFK, endorsed Obama in a Sunday New York Times op-ed titled "A President Like My Father." Ben Smith reported earlier this week that the Clintons were concerned about Kennedy's endorsement and were making a full-court press: I do know, however, that Hillaryland is worried: Two sources say she's directed a flood of calls the senator's way, with everyone from union leaders to his Massachusetts constituents scrambling to stop what Clinton's camp is worried could be an endorsement of Obama. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On January 27 2008 21:13 PobTheCad wrote: Which is more retarded - a gold standard which the US had until 1971 or running a 800billion trade deficit every year with no effort to decrease it? Immediate withdrawl of troops in Iraq is a lie, I don't know what you or anyone thinks but the President doesn't have some magical authority to wave his power-wand and *poof* ... troops gone from Iraq. It will take several months at the minimum, and probably closer to a year for all troops to be taken out of Iraq, no matter who is elected to office. Secondly, troops in Iraq have very little to do with our economy. Any other candidate will make efforts to reduce our defecit, if you bother to listen to any other candidates' ideas. Perhaps you only know Ron Paul because he's so big on the internet and you seem to not be from here. Anyways point being, don't talk about things you have no idea of. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
the other one is Caroline Kennedy who wrote an endorsement in the new york times | ||
|
MenzieK
United States123 Posts
On January 28 2008 04:16 Xeris wrote: Secondly, troops in Iraq have very little to do with our economy. Any other candidate will make efforts to reduce our defecit, if you bother to listen to any other candidates' ideas. Perhaps you only know Ron Paul because he's so big on the internet and you seem to not be from here. Anyways point being, don't talk about things you have no idea of. ROFL you have to really be kidding me, troops in Iraq=Iraq war, Iraq war not causing problems for our economy? Not changing our economy? Not effecting out economy? I would have to say that statement is more of an opinion and that of a subjective reality then a pragmatic solid concrete rebuttal. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
| ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On January 28 2008 06:01 MenzieK wrote: ROFL you have to really be kidding me, troops in Iraq=Iraq war, Iraq war not causing problems for our economy? Not changing our economy? Not effecting out economy? I would have to say that statement is more of an opinion and that of a subjective reality then a pragmatic solid concrete rebuttal. I'm saying the fact we have troops there isn't affecting our economy. Can you explain to me how the war is affecting our economy? Wars actually help economy more because it causes an increase in defense spending and creates more jobs, thereby stimulating the economy. The troops in Iraq don't have much to do with our economic problems. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 28 2008 07:47 Xeris wrote: Wars actually help economy more because it causes an increase in defense spending and creates more jobs, thereby stimulating the economy. The troops in Iraq don't have much to do with our economic problems. LOL and who pays this ? Ok war helps your economy on the short term ( Carlyle, Boeing, Blackwater and lots of "cool" firms are happy  ) but it increases A LOT the US's debt ( like if it wasnt already a problem ...).So on the long term your economy is fucked, sry. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
| ||
|
MenzieK
United States123 Posts
On January 28 2008 08:06 Xeris wrote: I never said it wasn't, I said the troops aren't the reason -_-;; Ummm what? The troops are being funded because of the war, because of the war, billions of dollars are being lost, effecting economy, war also effects the course of events, foreign policy, perceptions, and actions thus all contributing to our present shitty economy. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Many good things could have been done with the money spent for the war ... | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned. Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate." -- jpt | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
USSR , Rome (started debasing currency with lead , hired mercenaries) , British Empire. Wars bankrupt nations - the war in Afghanistan bankrupted the USSR. The Vietnam war bankrupted the USA - they had to ditch the gold standard and print money with no backing. This Chinese funded war in Afghanistan/Iraq will be the final nail in the USA. Farewell! | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
The US air force uses more oil than the country of Sweden. | ||
| ||
