Since TV is starting to deluge me with Hilary vs Obama, fairly often, I decided to make a thread. I know there is a limit to how far this discussion can go at this, with primaries a year away, but it's never too soon to start.
I really don't know a great deal about either (though that won't stop me from having a very strong, near fanatical opinion).
I like Obama, a lot. I don't know the details of his views on every issue at this point, but the way he speaks is appealing. In my vague memories of his speeches he sounded very intelligent. He doesn't sound like he speaks in a overly prepared cue card reader... he sounds like he does a lot of speaking off the top of his head on things he has thought hard about. And my assumption on this is somewhat confirmed when he is talking to someone live rather than giving a speech. Like this one time he was questioning Secretary Rice in congress, Condi was trying her hardest to dodge the question but Obama would not be derailed and was able to adapt his questions. This sort of thing seems typical of him.
I am excited by the idea of someone from his backround becoming President. (is backround supposed to be two words? the firefox spell check highlighted it) He could communicate to a lot of groups that have been left out, in the US and in the world. Half black, half white, internationally educated in Jakarta, went to Muslim and Catholic schools before going to excel at Harvard.
One thing I think everyone on the forum can appreciate is a very unique stance Obama has taken. A somewhat anti-babyboomer stance. "THE time has come, Senator Barack Obama says, for the baby boomers to get over themselves." Man, that is sweet to hear. '“Thank you, here’s your gold watch, it’s time for the personal style and political framework of the 1960’s to get out of the way,” said Eric Liu, 38, a speechwriter and policy aide in the Clinton White House who now runs a mentoring program in Seattle.' http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html
Hilary, on the other hand, I dislike, more and more. First, I'm very turned off by the idea I get, that there has been some plan going on to capitalize on a low point for republicans to get Hilary back in, and that democrats like me are under the obligation to vote for her somehow. I would grudgingly vote for her if she is up against a typical Republican candidate.
What has Hilary done that is so great? She strikes me as a typical politician who just happens to have strong connections. I'm sick to death of talk about the Clinton connection. Like most democrats, thinking of the Clinton days sounds like heaven, compared to now, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for someone from the same family. I didn't like everything about Clinton and I wouldn't even vote for Bill Clinton over Obama if he could run again, at this point.
Hilary gives me the vibe that she takes the democratic, anti-Bush base, for granted.
Irrelevant as it may seem, one of my most vivid memories of Hilary is when she was speaking out against violence in video games. I don't remember the details, but it was apparent that she hadn't really thought through the issue and was just trying to make a concession to distressed mothers.
I'm optimistically hoping for being able to find some common ground with Excalibur_Z about disliking Hilary Excal, I hope you contribute to this thread and confirm my dislike with some dirt you have on her
Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
I acknowledged I don't know much and there is a long way to go, that is part of the reason for this thread. "Wow. Just wow." Good to see you are as useless as usual.
Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about.
I don't like Hilary Clinton because of the whole "Hot Coffee" fiasco. Really, nobody even tried to understand what videogames are about and why Grand Theft Auto is a success in general. She's an idiot.
On January 26 2007 15:19 Servolisk wrote: Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about.
Um no. Not even close. It means THEY ARE NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING. NOTHING ELSE. It has NOTHING to do with sincerity. Have you ever heard of an actor? Ya, a good public speaker is good at seeming sincere in order to fool people. Politicians work on this A LOT. Again, nice to see someone asking for a ban just because I countered your point and disagree with you. If you can't argue by making thought-out, concrete points, don't try. You're just gonna end up asking for everyone else to be banned every time.
You said you like Hussein because he sounds pretty. I'm sure every intelligent person will agree that that is one of the worst things to base your vote on.
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote: Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
You're a moron. The most important information we have as to whether a politician is smart is gained through listening to them speak. Unless you think a candidate's intelligence is not relevant, you're not making much sense when you say that "sounding intelligent" is not important.
Your comment about "considering looking into" a candidate's platform or values is dripping with sarcasm, but it neglects the fact that Servo's already mentioned several concrete examples which refer to Obama's values and character. For example, his willingness not to sugar-coat his feelings (baby boomer remark), his ability to think on his feet (Condi Rice thing, etc.) and the fact that he's adapted and excelled in many different environments (cross-cultural, highly educated). Servo even prefaced his remarks by saying that he hadn't looked that deeply into Obama's platform (gee, maybe that's why he's posting here and soliciting input). In contrast, you offer no facts or argument of any sort either before or against either of the candidates.
And of course by referring to Obama as "Hussein" you're revealing yourself as a mindless hack. Yeah, attack someone for caring how a candidate speaks, but go ahead and worry about middle names, because they're really what's important. Congrats, you're a dumbshit.
On January 26 2007 15:19 Servolisk wrote: Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about.
Um no. Not even close. It means THEY ARE NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING. NOTHING ELSE. It has NOTHING to do with sincerity. Have you ever heard of an actor? Ya, a good public speaker is good at seeming sincere in order to fool people. Politicians work on this A LOT. Again, nice to see someone asking for a ban just because I countered your point and disagree with you. If you can't argue by making thought-out, concrete points, don't try. You're just gonna end up asking for everyone else to be banned every time.
You said you like Hussein because he sounds pretty. I'm sure every intelligent person will agree that that is one of the worst things to base your vote on.
Why do you keep referring to him by his middle name?
The reason I think Obama is sincere is because it would be difficult to talk the way he does and, as I mentioned, adapt/think on his feet, if he hadn't thought hard about it and believed it. For the most part.
I expect politicians to be able to speak well. They have no excuse not to. I'm not even concerned with things like pronunciation, proper English, and the things Bush is bad at. I'm talking about politicians who just come in with talking points, catch phrases, and constantly can't commit to anything/answer questions when they are in a conversation/debate because they are either too afraid to say something wrong or they haven't thought deeply enough about their subject matter.
On January 26 2007 15:33 Clutch3 wrote: And of course by referring to Obama as "Hussein" you're revealing yourself as a mindless hack. Yeah, attack someone for caring how a candidate speaks, but go ahead and worry about middle names, because they're really what's important. Congrats, you're a dumbshit.
Actually it was a play on the fact that he presented the candidates using one's first name and the other's last name, making it sound funny because it wasn't parallel. Therefore I introduced the candidates using middle names (as well as to draw attention to the fact that he misspelled both of their names). I'm sorry if you didn't get the joke.
On January 26 2007 15:19 Servolisk wrote: Speaking does matter to me. If it sounds like someone is just reading a carefully prepared speech and can't think on their feet, it makes me doubt how much sincere they are and how much they really know about what they are talking about.
Um no. Not even close. It means THEY ARE NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING. NOTHING ELSE. It has NOTHING to do with sincerity. Have you ever heard of an actor? Ya, a good public speaker is good at seeming sincere in order to fool people. Politicians work on this A LOT. Again, nice to see someone asking for a ban just because I countered your point and disagree with you. If you can't argue by making thought-out, concrete points, don't try. You're just gonna end up asking for everyone else to be banned every time.
You said you like Hussein because he sounds pretty. I'm sure every intelligent person will agree that that is one of the worst things to base your vote on.
Why do you keep referring to him by his middle name?
The reason I think Obama is sincere is because it would be difficult to talk the way he does and, as I mentioned, adapt/think on his feet, if he hadn't thought hard about it and believed it. For the most part.
I expect politicians to be able to speak well. They have no excuse not to. I'm not even concerned with things like pronunciation, proper English, and the things Bush is bad at. I'm talking about politicians who just come in with talking points, catch phrases, and constantly can't commit to anything/answer questions when they are in a conversation/debate because they are either too afraid to say something wrong or they haven't thought deeply enough about their subject matter.
Some people (eg President Bush) will never be able to speak clearly and concisely on their feet, no matter how much they work on it and how intelligent they are. Others (pretty much any successful actor or politician) can speak smoothly, clearly, and sound like they not only know a lot about the topic, but they are very sincere about it, regardless of how intelligent or ignorant they are. The average American gets this confused with intelligence and competence, and usually votes on the prettiest speaker, when it is one of the LEAST important things if you think about what it takes to be in Congress/the White House/etc. Yes, communicating your ideas does have importance in foreign relations and speaking on the floor to get bills passed, but for the most part politicians are gonna stick to their platform and ideals regardless of how well other politicians present their arguments. As can be seen here, it doesn't matter how good one is at speaking or debate if the other side only cares about getting his way.
In a recent study, 80% of black people said that they would vote for hilary over obama. You can also bet that somewhere around 80-85% of women will vote for hilary. Right now guliani(SP?) is ahead in polls where people were asked who they would vote for if the election were today. I dont think that obama is "known enough" to come anywhere near to becoming the president. sure hollywood loves the guy right now but i feel like hes just the flavor of the month. if anything i think hell become hilary's VP for the race.
Ignoring the horrible misspellings of both of your candidates, I feel it is still worthy to note that without knowing anything of either of their platforms I would vote for Obama, simply because he didn't marry Bill Clinton.
By the way, you can right click the underlined words and it will give suggestions.
Knowing something about their platforms, however, I would probably lean towards Hillary on every issue to come forth since Grand Theft Auto. That is probably because Obama has been relatively vague thus far in stating where he stands and makes his position not what isn't popular, that scares me.
None of this matters, though, because I won't have a vote in the Democratic primary in a year.
That, of course, doesn't rule out my voting for one of the two in November.
On January 26 2007 15:51 Servolisk wrote: I was referring to Obama as Obama and Clinton as Hillary because that is the way they are most quickly identified, by most.
OK, now that we're beyond that, can someone offer any information about either of these candidates?
pr0n, you seem interested in this thread... What do you think of Obama? Since he is your senator I'd like to hear what you think.
I personally did not like him because of some of his views on drugs and race. I've seen quotes by him before he ran for senate indicating that he was very pro-drug, and not just marijuana. He said he thought drugs were a good escape for inner-city youth, and stuff like that. I tend to believe education for lower-class kids would be better than joining gangs, doing drugs, and ending up as poor as your parents. He also used to be very pro affirmative action, to the point where colleges can give points simply based on the color of your skin, etc, etc. If this country is ever going to have race not be an issue, we need to start by eliminating government mandated racism such as affirmative action. Giving breaks based on income, location, etc. are much better than race, because race by itself does not indicate anything about an individual or their (lack of) opportunities. Affirmative action is bad for society as a whole because it often gives the job/admission/etc to the worst qualified person, and they have the greatest chance of spoiling the opportunity. It also plays a huge role in creating subconscious racism within a populous. "If the government says you're better/worse because of the color of your skin, I guess it must be true..."
EDIT: I'm not sure of his current platform/"views" but people generally don't change that much in 2 years, and if they say they have, they probably aren't being honest (flip-flop for votes). You cannot trust someone that changes their views all the time, because you have no indicator of how they will actually vote/act once elected. It's better to vote for someone who agrees whole-heartedly with half the populous' ideals than someone who always changes his stance to claim he agrees with the majority.
I'm also not a registered Democrat, so I'll have no say in him vs Clinton, although I think either one of them well lose to a moderately conservative Republican candidate if they get the Democratic bid.
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote: Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
I am going to be polite. You are an idiot.
Speaking well is extremely important in politics. It is the basis of diplomacy.
guys, congrats, its a new record. it only took a whole FIVE posts for a flamewar!!!
back to topic, i hate hilary. ever since her little campaign against violent video games. fuck her. im pretty sure she was also for other forms of censureship as well, but i really havent been up on my presidential candidate shit. i dotn know much about obama. nor do i know much about any repubs.
all i know is the democrats had better put a half way fucking decent candidate this time (NOT KERRY). HOW THE FUCK DO YOU LOSE TO BUSH WHEN 70% OF THE COUNTRY HATED HIM? god. that was the most pitiful election ever. i refused to vote kerry on the prinicple that he had no platform other than im not bush. we spent a good 30 min talking about htis in class the other day, and most of the class agreed.
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote: Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care.
Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about.
On January 26 2007 15:24 sith wrote: I don't like Hilary Clinton because of the whole "Hot Coffee" fiasco. Really, nobody even tried to understand what videogames are about and why Grand Theft Auto is a success in general. She's an idiot.
Ah, now I remember that a little better. I think she said something like "video game violence is a threat to society". She sounded like Bush, except Bush probably doesn't give a damn about video games.
1. Obama is very inexperienced, only been in senate 2 years. 2. Clinton would ruin this country. I would rather have Bush as pres for another 8 years than have her in for even 1.
Plus alot of american people are dumbfucks and my guess would be that they vote for Obama just to have the first black pres, or vote for hilary just to have the first woman pres, regardless of their views.
On January 26 2007 16:47 Apophis wrote: 1. Obama is very inexperienced, only been in senate 2 years.
He was also a state senator for 8 years before that. Compared to people who were governors like Bush and Clinton, he seems experienced enough.
It is pretty hard to run for President if you were a Senator for very long. It is very hard to have a good record for a long time and even if you do it is really easy to take things out of context that happened 10+ years ago. There also seems to be a catch 22 where if you keep yourself clean, you don't get any attention or anything to make you stand out, and if you do get enough attention it is bound to come with some controversy.
Plus, he would not be alone. All these elected officials have big teams.
On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote: Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about.
He wasn't asking for a ban because pr0n disagreed with him. He was asking for a ban because pr0n's post managed to win the triple crown of bad forum posts: 1) being overly sarcastic/flaming needlessly, 2) poor argumentation, and 3) not responding to the original topic of the thread. (A related offense might be focusing on spelling and/or punctuation.)
You're right it'd be better if politicans didn't have a face. But I don't think the way politicians appear when speaking is overrated in the United States, judging by the fact that of the many viable candidates we could have elected President the last two times, we elected the worst public speaker both times.
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote: Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care.
Actually, Bush's intelligence is well above average (hello MBA from Harvard???), and based on the fact that you think speaking skill suggests otherwise, WELL above yours. I don't know why people CONTINUE to think there is a correlation between forensic skill and intelligence after 6 years of Bush. Competence != intelligence.
On January 26 2007 16:47 Apophis wrote: 1. Obama is very inexperienced, only been in senate 2 years. 2. Clinton would ruin this country. I would rather have Bush as pres for another 8 years than have her in for even 1.
Plus alot of american people are dumbfucks and my guess would be that they vote for Obama just to have the first black pres, or vote for hilary just to have the first woman pres, regardless of their views.
obama has shown great work as a senator here in IL and is a much more promising, much less radical candidate than clinton. obama fighting
On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote: Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about.
He wasn't asking for a ban because pr0n disagreed with him. He was asking for a ban because pr0n's post managed to win the triple crown of bad forum posts: 1) being overly sarcastic/flaming needlessly, 2) poor argumentation, and 3) not responding to the original topic of the thread. (A related offense might be focusing on spelling and/or punctuation.)
You're right it'd be better if politicans didn't have a face. But I don't think the way politicians appear when speaking is overrated in the United States, judging by the fact that of the many viable candidates we could have elected President the last two times, we elected the worst public speaker both times.
On January 26 2007 15:33 Clutch3 wrote: And of course by referring to Obama as "Hussein" you're revealing yourself as a mindless hack. Yeah, attack someone for caring how a candidate speaks, but go ahead and worry about middle names, because they're really what's important. Congrats, you're a dumbshit.
Actually it was a play on the fact that he presented the candidates using one's first name and the other's last name, making it sound funny because it wasn't parallel. Therefore I introduced the candidates using middle names (as well as to draw attention to the fact that he misspelled both of their names). I'm sorry if you didn't get the joke.
It was a bad joke... I doubt that many people got it.
And you know perfectly well why Servo was using Hillary's first name, to avoid confusion with Bill. Go watch some TV news, you will see that many, if not most, pundits and talking heads do the same thing.
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote: Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care.
Actually, Bush's intelligence is well above average (hello MBA from Harvard???), and based on the fact that you think speaking skill suggests otherwise, WELL above yours.
and no, bush is not a smart guy. speaking skill doesn't always dictate intelligence, but being a complete and total dumbass does.
On January 26 2007 16:45 aseq wrote: Servo, i'm not particularly impressed by you misspelling barack, hilary and backround and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you. I personally think that the way politicians appear when making a speech and discussing is HUGELY overrated, there are many morons who don't even know their agendas and will simply vote for the 'most sympathetic' speaker. It'd be better if politicians didn't have a face, too much rubbish is added by media coverage to really see what they're about.
He wasn't asking for a ban because pr0n disagreed with him. He was asking for a ban because pr0n's post managed to win the triple crown of bad forum posts: 1) being overly sarcastic/flaming needlessly, 2) poor argumentation, and 3) not responding to the original topic of the thread. (A related offense might be focusing on spelling and/or punctuation.)
You're right it'd be better if politicans didn't have a face. But I don't think the way politicians appear when speaking is overrated in the United States, judging by the fact that of the many viable candidates we could have elected President the last two times, we elected the worst public speaker both times.
LOL @ "poor argumentation" with no counterpoint.
My counterpoints regarding your argumentation are in my first response to you. Just because you didn't try to respond to any of them doesn't mean they aren't there.
and then asking for a ban when someone disagrees with you.
More importantly he was pointlessly rude to me, as he has been in previous threads.
Pointlessly rude? How many times do people need to explain the lack of a correlation between speaking prowess and intelligence before you understand? I thought your previous posts indicated you dropped this, but now I see you are still rudely defending yourself instead of simply saying "it's not an issue."
perhaps the easiest election in the history of united states government is about to occur, and they are about to fuck it up by either running a black man or a woman
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote: Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care.
Actually, Bush's intelligence is well above average (hello MBA from Harvard???), and based on the fact that you think speaking skill suggests otherwise, WELL above yours. I don't know why people CONTINUE to think there is a correlation between forensic skill and intelligence after 6 years of Bush. Competence != intelligence.
Besides being a qualified student there are other ways to get into prestigious schools and come out with degrees. It was Yale though.
You can judge intelligence from speaking skill.
Some bad speaking due to trivial errors, does not necessarily matter. Like speaking with proper sentences, good pronunciation, etc. Most people accept these things from Bush and it personally isn't my biggest complaint with his speaking. I have problems with the fallacious arguments he makes.
I'd expect someone who "well above average intelligence" to be able to explain their beliefs when facing difficult questions.
Feels so strange for me with a two party system where one of them is seen as the left (and going left of that would be considered extreme?) When every one of the 7 partys in my countrys parlament are to the left of your leftmost party :S Obama might seem far out in the US? But all his opinions ive heard so far about the war, about foreign politics and healthcare etc are completly natural to me and everyone I know :S
On January 26 2007 15:14 pr0n wrote: Wow. Just wow. Voting on who "speaks well" or "sounds the most intelligent" is about the most idiotic thing you can do. You might as well vote on who runs the fastest 400, or who has the most letters in their name. Skill in public speaking does NOT relate to intelligence, competence, or any other skill useful for running a country....aside from public speaking. Least of all does it have any relation to platform or values, which are two things you might want to consider looking into.
I'm not saying anything about Hussein's platform. I'm probably much more informed about him than most after researching and voting in the Illinois senate race. Try voting on something important instead of throwing away your vote.
Have you noticed a trend of Bush's complete incompetance/lack of intelligence and his inability to speak on the spot??? yeah, they are related. What do you think debates are based around. It does have everything to do with platform and values because even if your found the cure for aids, if you sound like a fucking tool, no one is gonna care.
Actually, Bush's intelligence is well above average (hello MBA from Harvard???), and based on the fact that you think speaking skill suggests otherwise, WELL above yours. I don't know why people CONTINUE to think there is a correlation between forensic skill and intelligence after 6 years of Bush. Competence != intelligence.
Besides being a qualified student there are other ways to get into prestigious schools and come out with degrees. It was Yale though.
You can judge intelligence from speaking skill.
Some bad speaking due to trivial errors, does not necessarily matter. Like speaking with proper sentences, good pronunciation, etc. Most people accept these things from Bush and it personally isn't my biggest complaint with his speaking. I have problems with the fallacious arguments he makes.
I'd expect someone who "well above average intelligence" to be able to explain their beliefs when facing difficult questions.
On January 26 2007 17:17 lil.sis wrote: the fucking democrats are so stupid
perhaps the easiest election in the history of united states government is about to occur, and they are about to fuck it up by either running a black man or a woman
good job donkeys
Perhaps that is why Hilary and Obama want to run this year. It is probably the best opportunity to finally get a woman or black man. If not now, then it probably won't happen in a very, very, very long time.
Anyway, who would you prefer? John Edwards? He didn't impress people in 04, iirc. And him running might be a repeat of the 04 platform, a democrat running on the basis of not being republican.
I'd expect someone who "well above average intelligence" to be able to explain their beliefs when facing difficult questions.
I know YOU would expect that, but that's because you STILL think there is a correlation between intelligence and speaking prowess. Many incredibly smart people are just not good at communicating their ideas to the average Joe, or at communicating on the spot. Language skill is controlled by a portion of the brain that has little effect on other areas of intelligence. You can stick to your opinion, but science will tell you you are wrong.
I'm leaving until the superfight. Carry on your flamewar without me.
On January 26 2007 14:59 Servolisk wrote: "I'm optimistically hoping for being able to find some common ground with Excalibur_Z about disliking Hilary. Excal, I hope you contribute to this thread and confirm my dislike with some dirt you have on her"
Excalibur_Z? When he talks about e-Sports and gaming, I listen! When he talks to about politics, I skip : ) This way I can still see him as a shining tl.net light!
Anyway, who would you prefer? John Edwards? He didn't impress people in 04, iirc. And him running might be a repeat of the 04 platform, a democrat running on the basis of not being republican.
On January 26 2007 16:04 pr0n wrote: I personally did not like him because of some of his views on drugs and race. I've seen quotes by him before he ran for senate indicating that he was very pro-drug, and not just marijuana. He said he thought drugs were a good escape for inner-city youth, and stuff like that.
Chances are you are either blowing something he said out of proportion or making stuff up. So, that either makes you an idiot or liar... you pick.
I don't believe that a public figure can be elected to offices such as the mayor of Chicago and the United States Senate if he walked around saying its okay for kids to shoot up. Citation please, I want to see his exact words in its complete and original context.
On January 26 2007 17:26 lil.sis wrote: it just amazes me that they manage to fuck up elections when seriously any breathing white male that is not republican can landslide
04 was a fiasco because john kerry is a disgusting pretentious idiot
if the ticket had been edwards/kerry you would have seen a different result
I had the account EdwardsForPres on bnet because I was pro Kerry being elected then assassinated. Later, I'm off.
I'd expect someone who "well above average intelligence" to be able to explain their beliefs when facing difficult questions.
I know YOU would expect that, but that's because you STILL think there is a correlation between intelligence and speaking prowess. Many incredibly smart people are just not good at communicating their ideas to the average Joe, or at communicating on the spot. Language skill is controlled by a portion of the brain that has little effect on other areas of intelligence. You can stick to your opinion, but science will tell you you are wrong.
"Language is controlled by a portion of the brain that ..." OK, thanks. Are you really qualified to say?
Anyway, I'm primarily judging speaking by the content of their message rather than the delivery. Bush usually has poor content and faulty reasoning
On January 26 2007 17:11 oneofthem wrote: hilary is probably better as far as policy goes, i dont think she's serious about any ideology.
She is a very good politician, IE good at telling people what they want to hear regardless of its veracity.
of course, which means she will be very affected by the central opinion on things, she's no revolutionary, nor does she care about politics. so having hilary up there is like having a queen who doesn't do stuff on her own.
this is assuming teh interest groups/think tanks for obama/hilary are the same.
keep in mind that i'm as far from a democrat (or republican) as one can be.
On January 26 2007 17:03 pr0n wrote: Actually, Bush's intelligence is well above average (hello MBA from Harvard???), and based on the fact that you think speaking skill suggests otherwise, WELL above yours. I don't know why people CONTINUE to think there is a correlation between forensic skill and intelligence after 6 years of Bush. Competence != intelligence.
A presidential candidate who cannot remember the name of Pakistan's head of state, thinks Greeks are Grecians, Nigeria is an important continent, and that the Internet is plural is a certified dumbass.
I am certain also that his MBA and his C in Yale has jackshit to do with his actual ability.
i love how people love to bash kerry, who is smart, a proven leader, and a decorated vietnam veteran (a bronze star, a silver star, 3 purple hearts) because karl rove is a master propagandist
the republicans do a much better job of making their candidates look good and democrats look bad, and fooling the average american (which is not hard, b/c, let's face it, electing bush twice in a row takes at least some measure of idiocy)
but actually none of this matters, what the u.s. needs is a proportional representation system
On January 26 2007 17:47 uhjoo wrote: i love how people love to bash kerry, who is smart, a proven leader, and a decorated vietnam veteran (a bronze star, a silver star, 3 purple hearts) because karl rove is a master propagandist
the republicans do a much better job of making their candidates look good and democrats look bad, and fooling the average american (which is not hard, b/c, let's face it, electing bush twice in a row takes at least some measure of idiocy)
but actually none of this matters, what the u.s. needs is a proportional representation system
i assume uhjoo meant a voting system that distributes seats in a manner relating increasingly to # of votes - cause under the current system some seats have less votes behind them than others so some votes are worth more than others
it's something i want in canada badly as well
currently you end up with numbers like Apple party: 51% of vote, 43% of seats Orange party: 49% of vote, 57% of seats <- new government
Skill at speaking often has NOTHING to do with intelligence. You can be a bad public speaker and very smart. You can even have a quick wit and not be a good speaker. Often times when you're put on the spot, your mind just won't abstract. Also, with the right training (for instance, as mentioned, if you're an actor), you can be a great, seemingly smart speaker, while really not being that smart.
However, the OP was just saying that he liked starcraft barracks because he was good at pumping marines, not that he was going to mindlessly vote for him in the next election. And that's fine.
By the way, Edwards will be the next POTUS. Starcraft barracks guy's background sounds too extreme. I'm speaking about the muslim stuff. I consider myself enlightened and all of that, but I wouldn't (haha this year I can finally say I WONT!) vote for him. Ahhh, at least I know I'm biased. That's got to count for something.
Hilary has no shot. Just like you can feel repubs are going down, hilary is going down. Wouldn't you like to punch her? Fucking fake. Plus she's a woman, and again, I'd have reservations about voting for her, even though I know that might be unfair.
Repubs out, hilary out, marine medic firebat dude out, edwards will win (or some other gosu dem will come in and dominate)
On January 26 2007 17:47 uhjoo wrote: i love how people love to bash kerry, who is smart, a proven leader, and a decorated vietnam veteran (a bronze star, a silver star, 3 purple hearts) because karl rove is a master propagandist
the republicans do a much better job of making their candidates look good and democrats look bad, and fooling the average american (which is not hard, b/c, let's face it, electing bush twice in a row takes at least some measure of idiocy)
but actually none of this matters, what the u.s. needs is a proportional representation system
Nothing against you Uhjoo but kerry is not a proven leader, and shouldent be a decorated vietnam veteran. In vietnam, kerry got all 3 purple hearts without ever needing surgery or being seriously injured. Does a proven leader play around with a bag of rice and explosives, then after getting rice picked out of their ass and awarded a purple heart clame it was 'shrapnel'? Does a proven leader try to get sent home by getting very minor injurys? And should America's president be someone who hates America? Maybe there is a reason that people in the Army or people that were in the Military at that time tend to dissaprove of kerry.
While I cant say bush is any better. Infact he is as bad if not worse, neither bush or kerry should have been considered presidential candidates. Bush was president because of his dad, and kerry was a presidential candidate because he was as much of a war hero as Jack Murtha.
I remember once it becamse evident that Kerry would win the Democratic nom, a website was already created called "johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com." This was like days after the Iowa caucus, and Kerry is already running as the "not-Bush" candidate. He was already being called a moron by his own party before he could even begin his campaign. I don't know if the Republicans are great political strategists or if the Democrats are just terrible political strategists.
Colin Powel is openly white, but happens to be black. Couldn't resist.
Regardless of what is going to happen or what candidate comes into play: Republicans use underhanded tactics, untruthful statements, fox news, & bad imagery to make the other guys look bad. I hope if Guliani or McCain is the front runner for them, they will atleast not be nearly as underhanded as whatever the hell Rove did.
Democrats retaliate after the fact and point out what they're saying about them isn't true while not attacking the republicans nearly as much as they should be.
Hilary might play the Republican slander card and hit her candidate hard. I doubt she could win in America because they're not ready for a woman president.
Obama is a great choice. I also like Senator Joe Biden. However i'm not informed nearly enough of their political stances etc.
Republicans in general seem so much dirtier when it comes to major politics and aggressive strategies.
On January 26 2007 18:03 -_- wrote: By the way, Edwards will be the next POTUS. Starcraft barracks guy's background sounds too extreme. I'm speaking about the muslim stuff. I consider myself enlightened and all of that, but I wouldn't (haha this year I can finally say I WONT!) vote for him. Ahhh, at least I know I'm biased. That's got to count for something.
Hilary has no shot. Just like you can feel repubs are going down, hilary is going down. Wouldn't you like to punch her? Fucking fake. Plus she's a woman, and again, I'd have reservations about voting for her, even though I know that might be unfair.
What muslim stuff??
I agree that Hillary has no shot. No one really likes her that much. Gore only got 50% and I can't think of anyone who didn't vote for Gore who would vote for Hillary...but I can think of a lot of people who are vice-versa... so I doubt she'll have a shot.
The Democrats have an annoying tendency to nominate extremely uncharismatic candidates. I hope Hillary isn't the next one. Biden is an interesting candidate, but I'm not sure if he's got a chance.
To whoever was talking about Kerry's military record and the bag of rice, stop pathologically lying. I'm sick of having to disabuse people of the most ridiculous Republican-smear-machine lies.
The best way to get a feel for someones stance is looking at there voting record. Both are relatively new to congress so there is limited information to look at. Obama is a great speaker which gives the automatic impresion of strong leadership, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is policy. Being the beginning of both campaigns, we still have alot to learn about the both of them. What I find interesting is that a democrat, regardless of who, is probably going to win the next election. If the Hillary/Obama hype continues then we are either going to have our first black or our first female president.
On January 26 2007 18:03 -_- wrote: Skill at speaking often has NOTHING to do with intelligence. You can be a bad public speaker and very smart. You can even have a quick wit and not be a good speaker. Often times when you're put on the spot, your mind just won't abstract. Also, with the right training (for instance, as mentioned, if you're an actor), you can be a great, seemingly smart speaker, while really not being that smart.
You're speaking in generalities. Often enough there are exceptions.
Vote for Ron Paul if you have a free mind and is not controlled by corporate media. He is truly founding father material. Just PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEEEEASE do not vote for the lesser evil. There is still a year before the elections and plenty of time to overcome the powers that be.
On January 26 2007 17:47 uhjoo wrote: i love how people love to bash kerry, who is smart, a proven leader, and a decorated vietnam veteran (a bronze star, a silver star, 3 purple hearts) because karl rove is a master propagandist
the republicans do a much better job of making their candidates look good and democrats look bad, and fooling the average american (which is not hard, b/c, let's face it, electing bush twice in a row takes at least some measure of idiocy)
but actually none of this matters, what the u.s. needs is a proportional representation system
Nothing against you Uhjoo but kerry is not a proven leader, and shouldent be a decorated vietnam veteran. In vietnam, kerry got all 3 purple hearts without ever needing surgery or being seriously injured. Does a proven leader play around with a bag of rice and explosives, then after getting rice picked out of their ass and awarded a purple heart clame it was 'shrapnel'? Does a proven leader try to get sent home by getting very minor injurys? And should America's president be someone who hates America? Maybe there is a reason that people in the Army or people that were in the Military at that time tend to dissaprove of kerry.
While I cant say bush is any better. Infact he is as bad if not worse, neither bush or kerry should have been considered presidential candidates. Bush was president because of his dad, and kerry was a presidential candidate because he was as much of a war hero as Jack Murtha.
Kerry hates America? How did you get to this conclusion?
On January 26 2007 19:50 HAZE.tQ wrote: Vote for Ron Paul if you have a free mind and is not controlled by corporate media. He is truly founding father material. Just PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEEEEASE do not vote for the lesser evil. There is still a year before the elections and plenty of time to overcome the powers that be.
I'm definitely going to vote for the lesser evil. Even if Ron Paul is a better candidate (which I have no idea of). There are a lot of lives and money at stake by these decisions. I'd reconsider if some third candidate had a chance of winning, but not as it is.
If Nader supporters hadn't thought like you, Bush wouldn't have been President. They threw their votes away on someone who had no chance and wound up with someone as far from their ideals as possible. It doesn't seem smart to me, especially since Gore was relatively close to their values.
i would greatly prefer a candiate who actually runs on their ideas and beliefs rather then the bullshit that both sides put out. For half a decade the Dems line has been simply, "we hate republicans". that's it, nothing more nothing less. And they would openly contridict themselves on terms of policy stands simply to be oppisite of whatever the republicans. (An example comes to mind of the last presidential debates where Kerry wax poetic about the need for worldly involvment in a situation like iraq, but when North Korea was mentioned the worldly approuch, as favored by the 6 nation talks by Bush, was soundly critized by Kerry who called for the USA to deal alone with North Korea....wtf man?). If the democratics really want to push a more socialistic plan of goverment, they should come out and SAY so. tell the american people what you actually want to do besides punish the opposing party. (and no nancy palosasi's (yes i KNOW i misspelled that) "do it for the children" bullshit does not count).
But least anyone think i am merely criticizing the Dems alone let's take a quick look at the Republicans, who are the supposed to be the party of small goverment......
yeah right. let's raise the deficit and increase spending more then ANY OTHER CONGRESS. small goverment indeed. Add fear mongering and bigotry and a complete undesire to do any of the things that it's base really wants done (closing the border for one) and you have one of the largest failures of a party i have ever seen.
Both parties suck, all the canidates suck at the moment, honestly i am shocked a third party hasn't risen up strongly to take a share of the market as all the historical conditions are set for it.
On January 26 2007 20:10 Shymon wrote: (An example comes to mind of the last presidential debates where Kerry wax poetic about the need for worldly involvment in a situation like iraq, but when North Korea was mentioned the worldly approuch, as favored by the 6 nation talks by Bush, was soundly critized by Kerry who called for the USA to deal alone with North Korea....wtf man?).
Get your fucking facts straight. While Bush wanted only multilateral negotiations with North Korea, Kerry was in favor of having both unilateral and multilateral negotiations. Both the EU and China wanted the US to conduct seperate, unilateral talks with North Korea along with the multilateral negotiations.
On January 26 2007 20:10 Shymon wrote: For half a decade the Dems line has been simply, "we hate republicans". that's it, nothing more nothing less.
How does anyone reach this conclusion?
The same way you reach the conclusion that candidate A "hates america" or doesnt "support our troops." America is the land of politcal slogans, sound bites and catch phrases. The end result is that people start taking theatre as fact.
On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.
I'm sorry that i disagree with you. Clearly you are the only person on this forum entitled to an opinion.
EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
BTW 4 pages and almost no one discussed Obama or Hillary. I guess no one knows much about them yet. I'll try and dig some interesting stuff tomorrow I guess :o
On January 26 2007 18:31 MYM.Testie wrote: Colin Powel is openly white, but happens to be black. Couldn't resist.
Regardless of what is going to happen or what candidate comes into play: Republicans use underhanded tactics, untruthful statements, fox news, & bad imagery to make the other guys look bad. I hope if Guliani or McCain is the front runner for them, they will atleast not be nearly as underhanded as whatever the hell Rove did.
Democrats retaliate after the fact and point out what they're saying about them isn't true while not attacking the republicans nearly as much as they should be.
Hilary might play the Republican slander card and hit her candidate hard. I doubt she could win in America because they're not ready for a woman president.
Obama is a great choice. I also like Senator Joe Biden. However i'm not informed nearly enough of their political stances etc.
Republicans in general seem so much dirtier when it comes to major politics and aggressive strategies.
I don't mean to be offensive, but your liberal bias shows in your post. In all actuality, democrats in the US do a lot more of the complaining (unless you're talking specifically about campaigning). I used to find it funny going to cnn.com every day and always seeing their 2 lead politics follow the same format: Story 1: Some Republican(s) propose(s) [idea/policy/etc]. Story 2: Some Democrat(s) bash(es) Republican [idea/policy/etc]. It followed that literally 75% of the time.
Basically there's two parties: the party that proposes bad policy, and the party that whines about how bad the other party's proposals are. No matter who you elect, nothing will get done.
On January 26 2007 20:24 pr0n wrote: EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.
I'm sorry that i disagree with you. Clearly you are the only person on this forum entitled to an opinion.
EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
I love how you argue.
Manipulative, emotional, confrontational, and the mouth speaks before the brain thinks.
On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.
I'm sorry that i disagree with you. Clearly you are the only person on this forum entitled to an opinion.
EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
Fortunately, I am in the top .5% of education, and clearly the smartest person on this forum.
I don't think much of us besides Tech)psylo has really followed up enough on Hillary or Obama to have a good oppinion about them.
I myself will reserve any oppinion about them until I actually know anything about them.
In all honesty, I've kind of given up hope on American politics. Americans have lost sense of what a true leader is and the Republicans and Democrats themselves have miserably failed to bring forth a strong leader in the past decade.
On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.
I'm sorry that i disagree with you. Clearly you are the only person on this forum entitled to an opinion.
EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
Fortunately, I am in the top .5% of education, and clearly the smartest person on this forum.
Thus, I say you are wrong.
No, I have test scores and degrees to back my intelligence up as well.
i'm a democrat but i would vote for guiliani over obama/hillary? i dont know much about either candidate so it's too early to tell, but democrats really need to stop putting out the only candidates that could lose.
i don't think obama can win because he is muslim and it's a christian nation yadda yadda. i don't think hillary can win because she's a girl and kind of not very pretty anymore.
On January 26 2007 18:31 MYM.Testie wrote: Colin Powel is openly white, but happens to be black. Couldn't resist.
Regardless of what is going to happen or what candidate comes into play: Republicans use underhanded tactics, untruthful statements, fox news, & bad imagery to make the other guys look bad. I hope if Guliani or McCain is the front runner for them, they will atleast not be nearly as underhanded as whatever the hell Rove did.
Democrats retaliate after the fact and point out what they're saying about them isn't true while not attacking the republicans nearly as much as they should be.
Hilary might play the Republican slander card and hit her candidate hard. I doubt she could win in America because they're not ready for a woman president.
Obama is a great choice. I also like Senator Joe Biden. However i'm not informed nearly enough of their political stances etc.
Republicans in general seem so much dirtier when it comes to major politics and aggressive strategies.
I don't mean to be offensive, but your liberal bias shows in your post. In all actuality, democrats in the US do a lot more of the complaining (unless you're talking specifically about campaigning). I used to find it funny going to cnn.com every day and always seeing their 2 lead politics follow the same format: Story 1: Some Republican(s) propose(s) [idea/policy/etc]. Story 2: Some Democrat(s) bash(es) Republican [idea/policy/etc]. It followed that literally 75% of the time.
Basically there's two parties: the party that proposes bad policy, and the party that whines about how bad the other party's proposals are. No matter who you elect, nothing will get done.
yea there is gonna be liberal bias on this site, but what we call "liberal" is normal or even conservative in other contries;/
while both parties have flaws, something i would like to point out is that the democrats share the more popular views worldwide and would have more backing from the UN and other countries.
I'm not saying this is a reason to vote democrat, just putting that out there as something to think aboutT_T
Does anyone LIKE pr0n? I haven't seen a thread that he has posted in that doesn't end as a flame-war with him on the receiving end of verbal gang-rape.
Also, the 'top 5% intelligence' and 'top 1% in education' came off as INCREDIBLY pompous, overly cocky, and asshole-like.
I will probably get a reply to this with petty insults to my character, and start another flame-war. Maybe now that I predicted it, it will not come true, because he seems like the kind of asshole who would do that just to prove me wrong.
On topic.
This will be the first presidential election that I will be eligible to vote for, and I want to be informed as possible before I make my decision. Right now, with the limited information I have heard about both candidates, I like Barack better than Hillary. I dislike Hillary's crusade against violence in video games very much, (as I am a teenage boy, who would have guessed) and I like the idea of a multi-ethnicity president. I live in Hawaii, where mixed races are common, (Hell, Barack grew up in Hawaii, and how many ethnicities are in him?) and I think that a balanced view and experience of different cultures is very important for a person to experience throughout their life. Before I get pr0n flaming me for 'typically voting for the person who is from my home' I would like to say that YES, I AM making some of my decision based on that. IMHO experiencing the same environment growing up that someone else grew up in is a very good way to understand them as a person better.
On January 26 2007 21:47 geometryb wrote: i'm a democrat but i would vote for guiliani over obama/hillary? i dont know much about either candidate so it's too early to tell, but democrats really need to stop putting out the only candidates that could lose.
i don't think obama can win because he is muslim and it's a christian nation yadda yadda. i don't think hillary can win because she's a girl and kind of not very pretty anymore.
If you're top five percent in intelligence on this forum, you'd know that saying such a thing would just get you flamed.
EDIT: I don't know much about the platforms of either candidate. In my opinion, voting for the candidate with the views that match your own is the best way to go, but ability to pronounce/speak/combine words to make a logical sentence is generally an indication of intelligence. There are always exceptions of course. Besides, you can be the smartest person in the world, but if you can't show it or use it, what's the point?
Also, I hate to say it, but if Obama or Clinton are elected, I wouldn't be very surprised if some racist or sexist extremist assassinates them.
going after the baby boomers is probably a bad idea for obama. aarp is one of the most powerful lobbies, everyone over 50 is automatically in it, and senior citizens are one of the largest voting groups. they're the reason why medicare/medicaid/social security are practically untouchable.
just to reiterate, many of the shortcomings of the american democratic system flow from the first-past-the-post electoral system which elects winners based on a simple majority. this system encourages two party systems as well as a "move toward the center," meaning parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policy platforms.
thus, other factors become more important in elections: 1) propaganda and media play 2) "dirty" politics and "image" maintenance 3) stupid, staged debates that reveal little if anything about candidate policy platforms, the vast majority of which are never enacted even if the candidate wins
you fix this first by making parties actually count for (and stand for) something, and by widening the scope of political voices that are heard in the policymaking arena. proportional representation does this much better than what we have now. everyone has been crying for a real third party, but it just won't happen with our electoral system being a FPTF simple majority system.
obama and hillary, no matter what their personal strengths and beliefs, are players in this game and have no choice but to play along. they both are greatly disadvantaged as they are not white males (imo it matters little what the polls say, wait until election day when american voters vote with their true gendered and racist beliefs, wanting someone who "looks presidential"). americans are much more likely to want to vote for someone who looks like mccain or edwards.
Obama seems like a very strong candidate overall---- he is very popular and his only real "weakpoint" politically is his lack of experince.......although many consider that a good thing^_^
On the other hand, hillary has tons of money at her disposal and the support of Bill.....who alot of people still respect and he is very charismatic;/
Personally, I think hillary is too moderate for me;/ Some of her stances i really disagree with;o
edit: like uhjoo said, we wont really know americas gender/race bias till election day.......but i don't see anyone other then obama or hillary winning the dem ticket. (although i do like edwards 2nd best after obama and he is the obvious 3rd choice.)
Also.......I live in Iowa..........woohoo we get to start the fun early~_~
Our governor, Tom Vilsack, is running for pres too....hahaha. I wonder if that will make the Iowa Caucus less reliable this time;p
The fucking south is gonna screw over him and hilary. (America, sadly, is not ready for a minority nor a woman leader...I think Hilary is a cold bitch, STILL A LITTLE STINGY ABOUT THE SNUGGLY FUN EH?)
CONSERVATIVE MOTHER FUCKERS VOTED FOR BUSH..TWICE. THEYRE FUCKING TO BLAME. I' believe an ex-vice president like al gore woulda made better situations than this fucktard. (Screw kerry, he is a joke.)
But I'm trying to be short and up to the point here, think how BIll got elected. A talented public speaker and intelligent man, he didn't have a strong political background to start his run for the presidency.(An average governor from Arkansas.) But after giving a speech at a democratic convention in 1990, he gained fame, and boom. Knocked off bush. sr with class. (His rhetoric being, "Its the economy, stupid.")
I see obama possible, probably a better chance than hilary to get the focus, but those fucking uneducated stereotypically lesser culturally experienced individuals from the incestuous lands of countrymen. No, just no...
On January 26 2007 22:44 uhjoo wrote: just to reiterate, many of the shortcomings of the american democratic system flow from the first-past-the-post electoral system which elects winners based on a simple majority. this system encourages two party systems as well as a "move toward the center," meaning parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policy platforms.
thus, other factors become more important in elections: 1) propaganda and media play 2) "dirty" politics and "image" maintenance 3) stupid, staged debates that reveal little if anything about candidate policy platforms, the vast majority of which are never enacted even if the candidate wins
you fix this first by making parties actually count for (and stand for) something, and by widening the scope of political voices that are heard in the policymaking arena. proportional representation does this much better than what we have now. everyone has been crying for a real third party, but it just won't happen with our electoral system being a FPTF simple majority system.
obama and hillary, no matter what their personal strengths and beliefs, are players in this game and have no choice but to play along. they both are greatly disadvantaged as they are not white males (imo it matters little what the polls say, wait until election day when american voters vote with their true gendered and racist beliefs, wanting someone who "looks presidential"). americans are much more likely to want to vote for someone who looks like mccain or edwards.
Yeah I'm definitely not going to vote for Hillary, or Obama because of how they look. It has nothing to do with the ideals they hold. Where do you get off spewing this BS anyway? There are these people called conservatives who in general believe in less government spending and more taxcuts. Ever heard of that before?
EDIT: I don't know much about the platforms of either candidate. In my opinion, voting for the candidate with the views that match your own is the best way to go, but ability to pronounce/speak/combine words to make a logical sentence is generally an indication of intelligence. There are always exceptions of course. Besides, you can be the smartest person in the world, but if you can't show it or use it, what's the point?
Agreed. There IS a correlation between speaking ability and intelligence. But a correlation is just that, a correlation. Exceptions always exist.
And I have to say, it's definitely enlightening seeing how little we really know about these two top candidates, especially Obama. That's already like three people who thought he's a Muslim. I assume some people on here even still believe the ridiculous story about him being educated in a madrassa.
It's a sign of the ridiculousness of what the media chooses to focus on (especially this far in advance of an election), but also how disconnected we all are. It's really not a good sign for Obama, that half the people can't really say what he stands for and the other half have some very big misconceptions about him.
This bizarre "media focus" is what all politicans have to fight against to really show their substance (Democrats in particular since they're fighting a losing battle in terms of money and image).
Obama sucks, besides his economic ignorance (market interventionist), he also supports partial-birth abortions (where the baby is delivered and has its brain sucked out). Steve Forbes was the closest the US ever came to political intelligence
On January 26 2007 17:17 Servolisk wrote: Besides being a qualified student there are other ways to get into prestigious schools and come out with degrees. It was Yale though.
mmmm...bush's speech giving skills and education don't change the fact that his administration has failed every test it had. like katrina and the iraq war and the war on terror.
On January 27 2007 01:02 geometryb wrote: mmmm...bush's speech giving skills and education don't change the fact that his administration has failed every test it had. like katrina and the iraq war and the war on terror.
So? I think we're all aware of this fact, besides it has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton. PS the war against Iraq is a part of the war on terror .
On January 26 2007 22:44 uhjoo wrote: just to reiterate, many of the shortcomings of the american democratic system flow from the first-past-the-post electoral system which elects winners based on a simple majority. this system encourages two party systems as well as a "move toward the center," meaning parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policy platforms.
thus, other factors become more important in elections: 1) propaganda and media play 2) "dirty" politics and "image" maintenance 3) stupid, staged debates that reveal little if anything about candidate policy platforms, the vast majority of which are never enacted even if the candidate wins
you fix this first by making parties actually count for (and stand for) something, and by widening the scope of political voices that are heard in the policymaking arena. proportional representation does this much better than what we have now. everyone has been crying for a real third party, but it just won't happen with our electoral system being a FPTF simple majority system.
obama and hillary, no matter what their personal strengths and beliefs, are players in this game and have no choice but to play along. they both are greatly disadvantaged as they are not white males (imo it matters little what the polls say, wait until election day when american voters vote with their true gendered and racist beliefs, wanting someone who "looks presidential"). americans are much more likely to want to vote for someone who looks like mccain or edwards.
Yeah I'm definitely not going to vote for Hillary, or Obama because of how they look. It has nothing to do with the ideals they hold. Where do you get off spewing this BS anyway? There are these people called conservatives who in general believe in less government spending and more taxcuts. Ever heard of that before?
I thought uhjoo's post was great. Policy is really all that matters, but is policy even going to be discussed? Not really. There are obviously differances in the parties and differant demographics with differant values, but these people are being appealed to based on image and propaganda rather than policy. Conservatives? The Bush administration has spent more money then even the drunkest democrat would dream of, and regardless of what anybody says, if you are pushing a country into debt you are essentially raising taxes. Point being these people called conservatives are not voting based on policy but rather the image of the Bush administration that has been created by extensive propaganda, hence uhjoo's point.
On January 26 2007 23:19 QuietIdiot wrote: The fucking south is gonna screw over him and hilary. (America, sadly, is not ready for a minority nor a woman leader...I think Hilary is a cold bitch, STILL A LITTLE STINGY ABOUT THE SNUGGLY FUN EH?)
The Democrats do not need the south. They simply need to hold the northeast, and cali, and pick up a few more states in the midwest, and maybe Florida. (Politically, Florida isn't a typical southern state)
The Democrats shouldn't even want the South's votes. The South has stood in the way of pretty much every liberal and progressive movement in the history of the United States. Fuck the South.
Barak Obama... Hero of Black Race Top Candidate of 2007 United States of America Election... His journey just beginning but I will follow him to the end...he will meet opponent Hilary Clinton in final Election and bring us incredible policies to succeed in massive landslide victory for United States of America...it will be something I will never forget most unforgettable moment...
"And what has Congress debated, the past few years? Gay marriage. Abortion. French Fries: Congress renamed them. Twice. Flag burning. Billions in corporate welfare subsidies." lol
On January 26 2007 22:44 uhjoo wrote: just to reiterate, many of the shortcomings of the american democratic system flow from the first-past-the-post electoral system which elects winners based on a simple majority. this system encourages two party systems as well as a "move toward the center," meaning parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policy platforms.
thus, other factors become more important in elections: 1) propaganda and media play 2) "dirty" politics and "image" maintenance 3) stupid, staged debates that reveal little if anything about candidate policy platforms, the vast majority of which are never enacted even if the candidate wins
you fix this first by making parties actually count for (and stand for) something, and by widening the scope of political voices that are heard in the policymaking arena. proportional representation does this much better than what we have now. everyone has been crying for a real third party, but it just won't happen with our electoral system being a FPTF simple majority system.
obama and hillary, no matter what their personal strengths and beliefs, are players in this game and have no choice but to play along. they both are greatly disadvantaged as they are not white males (imo it matters little what the polls say, wait until election day when american voters vote with their true gendered and racist beliefs, wanting someone who "looks presidential"). americans are much more likely to want to vote for someone who looks like mccain or edwards.
Yeah I'm definitely not going to vote for Hillary, or Obama because of how they look. It has nothing to do with the ideals they hold. Where do you get off spewing this BS anyway? There are these people called conservatives who in general believe in less government spending and more taxcuts. Ever heard of that before?
I thought uhjoo's post was great. Policy is really all that matters, but is policy even going to be discussed? Not really. There are obviously differances in the parties and differant demographics with differant values, but these people are being appealed to based on image and propaganda rather than policy. Conservatives? The Bush administration has spent more money then even the drunkest democrat would dream of, and regardless of what anybody says, if you are pushing a country into debt you are essentially raising taxes. Point being these people called conservatives are not voting based on policy but rather the image of the Bush administration that has been created by extensive propaganda, hence uhjoo's point.
In addition, Bush was responsible for creating new government agencies as well as a domestic spying program. So he didn't fulfill small government either.
,,, whats wrong with the media today. It's scary to see them do stories like this and know the amount of leverage they have on the outcome of elections. ::sigh::
So the stories I have heard on NEWS are We have Barrack Obama tied in with "Osama". It's just 1 letter off! We have him portrayed with similarities between him and the Iranian. Any others that are ridiculous yet will work?
Apparently they don't have enough dirt on the guy yet so they have to bring him down by relating the coloured Obama to a world famous terrorist and the Iranian president.
Obama doesn't have a chance imo.
Then again: What white male can they send up against Guliani and McCain? Biden?
EDIT: I don't know much about the platforms of either candidate. In my opinion, voting for the candidate with the views that match your own is the best way to go, but ability to pronounce/speak/combine words to make a logical sentence is generally an indication of intelligence. There are always exceptions of course. Besides, you can be the smartest person in the world, but if you can't show it or use it, what's the point?
Agreed. There IS a correlation between speaking ability and intelligence. But a correlation is just that, a correlation. Exceptions always exist.
And I have to say, it's definitely enlightening seeing how little we really know about these two top candidates, especially Obama. That's already like three people who thought he's a Muslim. I assume some people on here even still believe the ridiculous story about him being educated in a madrassa.
It's a sign of the ridiculousness of what the media chooses to focus on (especially this far in advance of an election), but also how disconnected we all are. It's really not a good sign for Obama, that half the people can't really say what he stands for and the other half have some very big misconceptions about him.
This bizarre "media focus" is what all politicans have to fight against to really show their substance (Democrats in particular since they're fighting a losing battle in terms of money and image).
Yeah. I remember catching a clip of cnn ( which I try to avoid), where they were trying to link obama and the leader of Iran because they wore similar clothes.
I think the problem is the overabundance of marketing and the strong links between marketing media and politics. Politicians are allowed to get away with soundbites and slogans.
To the Canadians. Remember any slogans from the last election?
Politicians have to make concessions to powerful corporations to gain or maintain power.
Media wont ask difficult questions, and wont go hard on a person until he has fallen out of favour with enough people that they dont care about losing viewers. Think how many years it took for mainstream media to start publicly attacking Bush? Even the "left-leaning" network cnn has not really said anything negative about Bush outside of the last two years. And now they are doing it because the conservative audience has partially gone over to fox, and they want younger viewers. Which means six years of stations doing stories like "Grapes: As good for you as you thought" instead of actually...I dont know, doing news? The President started a war, is repealing civil liberties, had no developed plans outside of invading Iraq, led his country into an economic recession, and the media is going: "Celphones: Are they really so bad for you?"
Now the media is starting to calve into pro-democratic and pro-conservative - or more accurately anti-democratic and anti-conservative stations and shows. This, if possible, is even worse than the state of the media right now. We have "no-spin zones" and "hard hitting questions" with the end result that the viewers of news split along political lines and provide even less motivation - and more difficulty - for a station to step out of its attack party A stance.
The media holds no one accountable, except for the ever-dangerous grapes and celphones - and is rapidly losing an independant perspective; to the point where it is tying itself to politics and power. Instead of helping out the citizens, it is quickly becoming politically-driven propoganda.
If comedy shows do less of a disservice to the people in the realm of politics, we know that something has gone horribly wrong.
There is more of a focus on nationalism and "trust the leader" than on improving the country - this is the source of arrogance most often cited. It is a refusal to acknoledge even glaring problems with the country as it stands because of hammered in nationalism and a superpower oriented supremacy complex. Faith, trust and optimism are seen as positive traits, while questioning, inquiry, pessimism or disbelief are not good to have.
On top of this you have a highly isolationist country, who still wants to control or influence other countries. The end result is that the "international community" is seen as an antagonist. If they disagree with America, then the international community is being wishy-washy. It is america who is being decisive.
Now we get to disdain of human rights. American politicians have admitted to torture and what do the citizenry do? Nothing. Unless they are watching a pro-democratic news channel, they wont see it. Those who do watch anti-conservative channels see it as just another "attack point" in a mindless game of lets win the argument instead of actually trying to stop torture from occuring. Freedom of information is restriced. Faith is once again put in "the leader." People are held against their will without trial, without a lawyer, and often without even a specific charge. These people may also be tortured. Outsiders (homosexuals, non-christians, immigrants) are seen as something to unify against. This is a bad thing.
More? The potential for fraudulent elections to occur in the future. The mingling of religion, politics, media and marketing into one. Protection of corporations.
,,, whats wrong with the media today. It's scary to see them do stories like this and know the amount of leverage they have on the outcome of elections. ::sigh::
Obama '08
wtf? they EVEN mentioned that axis of evil nonsense. Political Entertainment has come a long ways I tell you. (plus that dude talked like he had a 9-iron up his ass)
Fortunately the primaries are a while off yet, but with Obama and Clinton leading the race, I smell another GOP victory in 2008 coming around the corner, when their party is able to cast off the Bush legacy and offer their lineup of superstar candidates.
In the propaganda stage of elections, one has to read very carefully between the lines to get an approximate gauge of a candidate's character, as official platform is next to worthless. And after mildly supporting Bush in 2000 I no longer trust my judgement on these things. The upcoming French elections are more interesting anyhow.
,,, whats wrong with the media today. It's scary to see them do stories like this and know the amount of leverage they have on the outcome of elections. ::sigh::
Obama '08
wtf? they EVEN mentioned that axis of evil nonsense. Political Entertainment has come a long ways I tell you. (plus that dude talked like he had a 9-iron up his ass)
Yeah, there's that "liberal bias" with CNN.
You can debate media bias and dirty politics, but I am absolutely positive of this fundamental difference between the parties: Republicans attack Democrats a LOT for really stupid, irrelevant things. Just remember the top five things that you remember the Republicans using to attack Kerry... I'll bet at least three of them had nothing to do with his ideas or stances on the issues. The media plays right into this strategy.
At least the Democrats, as scattered and weak-willed as they are at the moment, are usually trying to discuss real policy issues when they attack the Republicans. Sure, there are nutjobs on both sides, but the Republican nutjobs have a lot more sway over the party.
To take an example of how the media deals with these issues, consider if Obama were a Republican. Well, it's hard to find someone who is the Republican equivalent of Obama, but I guess as far as presidential contenders for 2008, you could take John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani. Now go ahead and see if you can find even close to the same amount of ridiculous stories about any of those guys as you find about Hillary and Obama. And McCain's been around for YEARS.
It's not really even the Republicans' fault. Sure, they do spend more time digging up dirt and making wild conjectures, but it's the media's job to sort out what's true and what's important. But today's media usually takes the bait, no matter how silly or far-fetched the story. And they do this, regardless of party affiliation.
And don't even get me started on the dozens of (predominantly Republican) lawmakers who are being indicted or investigated. Even congressman Bill Jefferson, a Democrat, who's as crooked as they come, gets almost no play from the mainstream media when he's clearly about to be sent to jail. It's a sad state of affairs.
On January 27 2007 11:37 MoltkeWarding wrote: Fortunately the primaries are a while off yet, but with Obama and Clinton leading the race, I smell another GOP victory in 2008 coming around the corner, when their party is able to cast off the Bush legacy and offer their lineup of superstar candidates.
I agree with this entirely. I would also like to bring up an incredibly important point here that no one seems to be acknowledging. Hilary is a woman, and Obama is black.
Now I'm not calling American's racist, trust me. I'm saying, federal elections in the states are almost always won narrowly. Do you really think that a person of a minority group can win when the elections are so close between candidates that are so similar?
I'd also like to throw out an FYI. If John McCain runs, he'll kick any potential dem with ease. Hilary, Obama, or faceless white guys alike.
On January 27 2007 12:05 Servolisk wrote: I'm greatly confused by the strength getting attributed to McCain.
Maybe you'll be less confused when he runs and wins.
Thanks, now I get it.
Haha, fine I was being a dick. But you're not serious are you?
McCain has all the backing of the republican base due to his pro-life views, but he has much more palletable views from the perspective of more liberal and middle leaning voters in terms of foreign policy, torcher, etc.
He's basically the anti-bush, but he's still a republican. He's perfectly positioned to take office. If you add to that the fact that the dems are leaning to putting a woman up against him you're looking at a fairly good bet for the next president.
On January 27 2007 12:05 Servolisk wrote: I'm greatly confused by the strength getting attributed to McCain.
Maybe you'll be less confused when he runs and wins.
Thanks, now I get it.
Haha, fine I was being a dick. But you're not serious are you?
McCain has all the backing of the republican base due to his pro-life views, but he has much more palletable views from the perspective of more liberal and middle leaning voters in terms of foreign policy, torcher, etc.
He's basically the anti-bush, but he's still a republican. He's perfectly positioned to take office. If you add to that the fact that the dems are leaning to putting a woman up against him you're looking at a fairly good bet for the next president.
Well, I agree that if McCain gets the nomination, he probably beats anyone the Dems have (this is as things currently stand... who knows what will happen in the next 21 months). At this point he has broad crossover appeal.
But McCain's gonna have a hard time getting the nomination. He's actually more liked by independents than Republicans, and even Dems like him almost as much as conservatives.
As of right now, Giuliani is running 8% ahead of him (this is with a lot of others in the same poll, so who knows which of them gets the support if the other candidates drop out), and I've got to think that Giuliani will only gain support versus McCain. McCain's strong support for the surge will likely hurt him as time goes on, unless things really change for the better in Iraq. On other issues, Giuliani's got more strengths and fewer weaknesses with the Republican base. I think he fares better than McCain as time goes on.
McCain is far from anti-Bush, and there are a lot of conservatives that don't like him. It's not given that he will get the Republican nomination.
I don't get the feeling he is popular now, although he was around 04, a lot has changed. His strength seemed to be he was a compromise between Bush and democrats, but it did not last.
Given how the media got on Kerry for being a flip flopper they should have a field day with McCain.
On January 27 2007 13:39 Servolisk wrote: McCain is far from anti-Bush, and there are a lot of conservatives that don't like him. It's not given that he will get the Republican nomination.
I don't get the feeling he is popular now, although he was around 04, a lot has changed. His strength seemed to be he was a compromise between Bush and democrats, but it did not last.
Given how the media got on Kerry for being a flip flopper they should have a field day with McCain.
Also, he is not a very convincing speaker.
That's true, he might have a hard time getting the nomination. The flip flop thing is a non issue though. The reason kerry got burned for that is that the republicans were way better at media manipulation than the dems who were basically pathetic in every side of campaigning.
On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.
I'm sorry that i disagree with you. Clearly you are the only person on this forum entitled to an opinion.
EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
You make TL a not so happy place eversince you came here. Rebuting other people opinions on the basis of trying to be smart isnt called intelligence. what a fucking child
and please make it an IP ban or else O ya what what your old qoute on your flame account aka "pr0n-"? Was it "making myself look stupid" re-ban this flaming piece of shit.
Haze, your post is as unintelligible as it is whiney. Mods ban people when they damn well please and your bitching is far more irritating than pron's superiority complex. Shut the hell up.
Being a self-righteous, pompous, asshole is not in and of itself worthy of a ban. If anything pron has now doomed himself to being disliked on the forum, as that little quip will be used against him every other time he posts for the rest of his time here. Rest easy with that in mind.
On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.
I'm sorry that i disagree with you. Clearly you are the only person on this forum entitled to an opinion.
EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
On January 26 2007 23:19 QuietIdiot wrote: The fucking south is gonna screw over him and hilary. (America, sadly, is not ready for a minority nor a woman leader...I think Hilary is a cold bitch, STILL A LITTLE STINGY ABOUT THE SNUGGLY FUN EH?)
CONSERVATIVE MOTHER FUCKERS VOTED FOR BUSH..TWICE. THEYRE FUCKING TO BLAME. I' believe an ex-vice president like al gore woulda made better situations than this fucktard. (Screw kerry, he is a joke.)
But I'm trying to be short and up to the point here, think how BIll got elected. A talented public speaker and intelligent man, he didn't have a strong political background to start his run for the presidency.(An average governor from Arkansas.) But after giving a speech at a democratic convention in 1990, he gained fame, and boom. Knocked off bush. sr with class. (His rhetoric being, "Its the economy, stupid.")
I see obama possible, probably a better chance than hilary to get the focus, but those fucking uneducated stereotypically lesser culturally experienced individuals from the incestuous lands of countrymen. No, just no...
Makes you wonder why the US hasn´t disintegrated. There really isn´t much in common between some (many?) parts of the states. Maybe if a conservative gets elected in 2008 it will help people realize this, and start some kind of movement for disintegration wich imo would be more beneficial than Hillary in the office.
[QUOTE]On January 27 2007 17:04 HAZE.tQ wrote: [QUOTE]On January 26 2007 20:24 pr0n wrote: [QUOTE]On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.[/QUOTE] shit[/QUOTE] I think I speak for all of us when I say
On January 27 2007 13:41 Servolisk wrote: What does Giuliani have going for him other than being mayor of New York during 9/11?
What else could you need? He was very well-known and respected for that and it's going to work in his favor. He looks like the strength the people want to see when they elect a president. He's got a good shot because he is a middle Republican and believes some of the things Democrats do {as do I}. I don't think McCain and Giuliani will join together, but it would be big if they did. That's a powerful combination of Republican power.
Also it's going to come down to who the Democrats choose. The Democrats should probably avoid limiting the ticket to a black guy or a white woman. I know they may be progressive but they got lucky with Pelosi. We're not going to vote for a black man or white woman in the next 5 years. That's what I think.
We've been discussing this in my poli sci classes and it's really going to come down to character and facial difference, not necessarily on the issues. I don't think American's are ready for a woman president, and I think the election is going to come down to New York. Granted we're mostly liberal if Giuliani runs it will be a fight between the ex-Mayor and our Senator. I really don't even want to think about the 08 election until primary season. It's almost pointless right now. We still have 2 more years of our good ol' lame duck to enjoy =]
On January 26 2007 17:57 HAZE.tQ wrote: Someone re-ban pr0n please. He's a fucking Rtard.
I'm sorry that i disagree with you. Clearly you are the only person on this forum entitled to an opinion.
EDIT: Actually if you want me to counter your point, I'm probably in the top 5% of the forum for intelligence, and top 1% for education. And yes, I have the test scores and degrees to back that up. But that doesn't matter. What matters is you didn't even counter any of my points; you just ask me to be banned for being right.
~_~ My test scores > your test scores. Wanna bet?
you just got served by a guy who can't search his nickname
On January 26 2007 14:59 Servolisk wrote: Since TV is starting to deluge me with Hilary vs Obama, fairly often, I decided to make a thread. I know there is a limit to how far this discussion can go at this, with primaries a year away, but it's never too soon to start.
I really don't know a great deal about either (though that won't stop me from having a very strong, near fanatical opinion).
I like Obama, a lot. I don't know the details of his views on every issue at this point, but the way he speaks is appealing. In my vague memories of his speeches he sounded very intelligent. He doesn't sound like he speaks in a overly prepared cue card reader... he sounds like he does a lot of speaking off the top of his head on things he has thought hard about. And my assumption on this is somewhat confirmed when he is talking to someone live rather than giving a speech. Like this one time he was questioning Secretary Rice in congress, Condi was trying her hardest to dodge the question but Obama would not be derailed and was able to adapt his questions. This sort of thing seems typical of him.
I am excited by the idea of someone from his backround becoming President. (is backround supposed to be two words? the firefox spell check highlighted it) He could communicate to a lot of groups that have been left out, in the US and in the world. Half black, half white, internationally educated in Jakarta, went to Muslim and Catholic schools before going to excel at Harvard.
One thing I think everyone on the forum can appreciate is a very unique stance Obama has taken. A somewhat anti-babyboomer stance. "THE time has come, Senator Barack Obama says, for the baby boomers to get over themselves." Man, that is sweet to hear. '“Thank you, here’s your gold watch, it’s time for the personal style and political framework of the 1960’s to get out of the way,” said Eric Liu, 38, a speechwriter and policy aide in the Clinton White House who now runs a mentoring program in Seattle.' http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html
Hilary, on the other hand, I dislike, more and more. First, I'm very turned off by the idea I get, that there has been some plan going on to capitalize on a low point for republicans to get Hilary back in, and that democrats like me are under the obligation to vote for her somehow. I would grudgingly vote for her if she is up against a typical Republican candidate.
What has Hilary done that is so great? She strikes me as a typical politician who just happens to have strong connections. I'm sick to death of talk about the Clinton connection. Like most democrats, thinking of the Clinton days sounds like heaven, compared to now, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for someone from the same family. I didn't like everything about Clinton and I wouldn't even vote for Bill Clinton over Obama if he could run again, at this point.
Hilary gives me the vibe that she takes the democratic, anti-Bush base, for granted.
Irrelevant as it may seem, one of my most vivid memories of Hilary is when she was speaking out against violence in video games. I don't remember the details, but it was apparent that she hadn't really thought through the issue and was just trying to make a concession to distressed mothers.
I'm optimistically hoping for being able to find some common ground with Excalibur_Z about disliking Hilary Excal, I hope you contribute to this thread and confirm my dislike with some dirt you have on her
wow 8 threads and no real discussion on the differences between the two candidates.
does ANYONE have any FACTS about the two? if youre going to be a biased retard (lib or repub,i dont care, youre a jackass either way. ppl who vote on party lines should be shot.) dont even bother responding.
i was tlaking with my parents the other day about this topic and pretty much realized i know shit about either of them. the only things i know about hilary are: shes against violent video games (btw does anyone have a link to this with the hot coffee thing? my parents dont believe me) i think that sounds too conservative for me, borderline censorship stuff. and i just dont like the fact that no matter what people claim, this lady would be most likely irrelevant if it was for her weed smokin, pimpin husband.
so, does anyone have any legitimate sources where i could get info on their platforms?
On January 26 2007 14:59 Servolisk wrote: Since TV is starting to deluge me with Hilary vs Obama, fairly often, I decided to make a thread. I know there is a limit to how far this discussion can go at this, with primaries a year away, but it's never too soon to start.
I really don't know a great deal about either (though that won't stop me from having a very strong, near fanatical opinion).
I like Obama, a lot. I don't know the details of his views on every issue at this point, but the way he speaks is appealing. In my vague memories of his speeches he sounded very intelligent. He doesn't sound like he speaks in a overly prepared cue card reader... he sounds like he does a lot of speaking off the top of his head on things he has thought hard about. And my assumption on this is somewhat confirmed when he is talking to someone live rather than giving a speech. Like this one time he was questioning Secretary Rice in congress, Condi was trying her hardest to dodge the question but Obama would not be derailed and was able to adapt his questions. This sort of thing seems typical of him.
I am excited by the idea of someone from his backround becoming President. (is backround supposed to be two words? the firefox spell check highlighted it) He could communicate to a lot of groups that have been left out, in the US and in the world. Half black, half white, internationally educated in Jakarta, went to Muslim and Catholic schools before going to excel at Harvard.
One thing I think everyone on the forum can appreciate is a very unique stance Obama has taken. A somewhat anti-babyboomer stance. "THE time has come, Senator Barack Obama says, for the baby boomers to get over themselves." Man, that is sweet to hear. '“Thank you, here’s your gold watch, it’s time for the personal style and political framework of the 1960’s to get out of the way,” said Eric Liu, 38, a speechwriter and policy aide in the Clinton White House who now runs a mentoring program in Seattle.' http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html
Hilary, on the other hand, I dislike, more and more. First, I'm very turned off by the idea I get, that there has been some plan going on to capitalize on a low point for republicans to get Hilary back in, and that democrats like me are under the obligation to vote for her somehow. I would grudgingly vote for her if she is up against a typical Republican candidate.
What has Hilary done that is so great? She strikes me as a typical politician who just happens to have strong connections. I'm sick to death of talk about the Clinton connection. Like most democrats, thinking of the Clinton days sounds like heaven, compared to now, but that doesn't mean we have to vote for someone from the same family. I didn't like everything about Clinton and I wouldn't even vote for Bill Clinton over Obama if he could run again, at this point.
Hilary gives me the vibe that she takes the democratic, anti-Bush base, for granted.
Irrelevant as it may seem, one of my most vivid memories of Hilary is when she was speaking out against violence in video games. I don't remember the details, but it was apparent that she hadn't really thought through the issue and was just trying to make a concession to distressed mothers.
I'm optimistically hoping for being able to find some common ground with Excalibur_Z about disliking Hilary Excal, I hope you contribute to this thread and confirm my dislike with some dirt you have on her
You should have paged me to this thread because this is the first time I've seen it.
Personally I find all the presidential stuff pretty uninteresting since we still have over a year and a half to go. This is plenty of time for those running to get their hype machines worked up but for most people I'd say it's irrelevant.
That said, we don't know very much about Obama or Hillary. Well, we know more about Hillary than Obama, I should say. Everybody knows Hillary will pander to anyone and everyone, just like Bill. She doesn't seem to have very strong convictions and generally appears to be very wishy-washy while also being a bit condescending. That's the impression I get from her, anyway. She's also a horrible singer (for those people who heard that Star-Spangled Banner clip, it's agonizing) haha.
Obama, on the other hand, nobody really knows anything about. He sort of came out of nowhere with his presidential bid. And, of course, like all presidential hopefuls, everyone in the media is trying to dig up dirt on him but so far it looks like they've been unsuccessful. The worst stories I've heard about him are "he has big ears" (no joke) and "he once did cocaine" (what politician hasn't these days?).
But just like the Mark Foley thing before the election, I think most camps are withholding the most damaging stories about each candidate until just before the primaries, where they can create the biggest media storm possible. Maybe it turns out that Obama beheaded a US Marine with a rusty saw, or that Hillary performed a clitorectomy on Chelsea. We don't really have enough information to make a final judgment on either candidate because they're still pretty reserved about their positions (Hillary much moreso than Obama).
Obama seems to be much more liberal than Hillary, but he seems to also be far more bold and straightforward about his beliefs. That's going to get him a lot more support from the public in my estimation, but like I said, nothing's set in stone until we get all the info.
EDIT: Here's kind of a funny thing Biden said today about Obama. SEN. BIDEN SHOCK INTERVIEW: 'I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy'... hahaha. Implying of course that other African-Americans are stupid, unpresentable criminals. I thought that was sort of a strange thing to say.
does anyone believe the next president of the united states will truely be a woman or a black man?
+im not saying that it would be bad, necessarily, but i am sick of certain groups of people claiming such things would denote "progress", honestly that is the most backwards idea.
Neither candidate can win. The south and middle states certainly aren't ready for it yet. Especially now that it's fox viewers have learned that the coloured man went to a muslim school.
On January 31 2007 13:23 MYM.Testie wrote: Neither candidate can win. The south and middle states certainly aren't ready for it yet. Especially now that it's fox viewers have learned that the coloured man went to a muslim school.
i agree.
but if you think about it, the people do not want someone who is different from them making the decisions which control many aspects of their lives.
On January 31 2007 13:23 MYM.Testie wrote: Neither candidate can win. The south and middle states certainly aren't ready for it yet. Especially now that it's fox viewers have learned that the coloured man went to a muslim school.
Currently, both Obama and Hillary are doing just fine in the polls when compared to their republican counterparts. Both lead in good number of them.
althought i could care less what what color/race my president is, i sincerely doubt that the rest of the country is ready for either of them or anyone that isnt a white male.
and the polls dont really say much. 1000 people (i only glanced at the first 3) is hardly a good sample size for a country of god knows how many million. plus, im not sure if the source of the poll indicates where they took respones from, but princeton is in nj, a bigtime lib state.
On January 31 2007 13:49 j0ehoe wrote: althought i could care less what what color/race my president is, i sincerely doubt that the rest of the country is ready for either of them or anyone that isnt a white male.
and the polls dont really say much. 1000 people (i only glanced at the first 3) is hardly a good sample size for a country of god knows how many million. plus, im not sure if the source of the poll indicates where they took respones from, but princeton is in nj, a bigtime lib state.
Depending on how they chose who to poll, 1000 can be an adequate number.
On January 31 2007 13:49 j0ehoe wrote: althought i could care less what what color/race my president is, i sincerely doubt that the rest of the country is ready for either of them or anyone that isnt a white male.
and the polls dont really say much. 1000 people (i only glanced at the first 3) is hardly a good sample size for a country of god knows how many million. plus, im not sure if the source of the poll indicates where they took respones from, but princeton is in nj, a bigtime lib state.
Depending on how they chose who to poll, 1000 can be an adequate number.
yea, it would depend on what youre trying to project. from the way you worded it, i thought it was as to the WHOLE nation's opinion. if youre talking about a state or portion of a state, then yea, it could be.
I'll try and find his actual stances in a little bit, but I highly doubt they will deviate from this trend (but I might be trying to bring a positive trait to light about a politician and I could be way off the mark).
Edit: Just realized it was a more pansy-styled claims. He didn't show any stands on tough issues, nor did he make the only tough issue that I see (Iraq) any different than a standard politician answer. It looks right now that he is just looking for votes (however, I do like him more than Hillary and Condy).
On January 31 2007 13:49 j0ehoe wrote: althought i could care less what what color/race my president is, i sincerely doubt that the rest of the country is ready for either of them or anyone that isnt a white male.
and the polls dont really say much. 1000 people (i only glanced at the first 3) is hardly a good sample size for a country of god knows how many million. plus, im not sure if the source of the poll indicates where they took respones from, but princeton is in nj, a bigtime lib state.
Depending on how they chose who to poll, 1000 can be an adequate number.
yea, it would depend on what youre trying to project. from the way you worded it, i thought it was as to the WHOLE nation's opinion. if youre talking about a state or portion of a state, then yea, it could be.
No, you dont understand. If the people doing the surveys are doing it properly, they can accurately measure the thoughts of the entire nation, just from those 1000 people.
In line with what was said about there not being much info available for each candidate... I read an article that advised Obama to run for president in '08, because the longer he waited, the more dirt the opposition would dig up on him!
The main point was that all politicians get forced into voting for policies they are against, because often they're bundled with some other policy they are for and they have to vote yes or no to the whole package. So the later someone runs for president, the more the opposition can claim that he's hypocritical, and/or has a track record of voting for ridiculous policies.
Plus, of course, it's harder to keep a clean record the older you get, since you have that many more years to slip up, and the opposition is always waiting for their chance.
EPT
Excal, I hope you contribute to this thread and confirm my dislike with some dirt you have on her 
O ya what what your old qoute on your flame account aka "pr0n-"? Was it "making myself look stupid" re-ban this flaming piece of shit.![[image loading]](http://www.orlyowl.com/quiterly.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/3074/hlaryhz7.jpg)
