|
Post by Roam'n on Feb 2, 2008 21:27:53 GMT -5
^ CJF: Bush seemed really sincere too. It's not until now that everybody in the entire world sees that he's a corporate tool; completely out of touch with the need of common man. The stuff the current administration pulls off makes Nixon's dirty tricks look like child's play. And much of it won't be investigated until way after the fact. mamba: lol. well besides Obama being halfbreed like us. Born in Hawaii and spent a great deal of his youth in Hawaii and Indonesia... His parents divorced when he was 2, his mom remarried an Indonesian.. so he has a younger EA half sister: Maya Soetoro. ^ Obama's half sister at his high school graduationIMO it really gives hims a worldly sense, certainly more then any of the other candidates we see running. They all seem like old stogy issue-driven types, driven by the political machinery that's been poisoned by the influences of the wealthy industrial/military/energy complex. If Obama gets the democratic nomination, that very same industrial complex will go after him in full force. They'll spend over billion dollars in negative campaigning if they have to. It'll get nasty.
|
|
|
Post by black mamba on Feb 2, 2008 22:02:31 GMT -5
mamba: lol. well besides Obama being halfbreed like us. Born in Hawaii and spent a great deal of his youth in Hawaii and Indonesia... His parents divorced when he was 2, his mom remarried an Indonesian.. so he has a younger EA half sister: Maya Soetoro. IMO it really gives hims a worldly sense, certainly more then any of the other candidates we see running. They all seem like old stogy issue-driven types, driven by the political machinery that's been poisoned by the influences of the wealthy industrial/military/energy complex. I totally agree. Time Magazine actually had an entire article devoted to how/why Barack's racial identity (as well as his time spent in Hawaii/Indonesia, etc.) may/may not have an effect on voters (you can read it here: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689619,00.html-- it gets a bit off-track at the end, but it's still a good read).
|
|
|
Post by Vestirse on Feb 3, 2008 1:47:47 GMT -5
I've gotta go with Obama - on all counts a more elegant and genuine seeming person. I really hope the Dems don't go with Hillary in the end - she's too polarizing.
|
|
|
Post by black mamba on Feb 3, 2008 1:59:19 GMT -5
Anyone live in a Super Tuesday state, out of curiosity?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 3, 2008 7:39:23 GMT -5
People make such a big deal about sincerity. Nixon wasn't sincere, yet got us out of Vietnam and established relations with a former enemy (Korean and Vietnam war) in China. That's the equivalent of the next president getting us out of Iraq and having us establish relations with Iran or Venezuela (much smaller scale than China of course). If Nixon could do the following and we had some machine to bring him back to life, I'd vote for him in an instant. A president's sincerity and trustworthiness count for me a lot. Your insincere Nixon also plunged the nation into a political crisis with his Watergate Scandal.
|
|
|
Post by buff on Feb 3, 2008 7:50:15 GMT -5
Based on Legislative records and experienced - Hillary Clinton. I'm not swayed by people who make good speeches (due to a well modulated voice) with a weak foundation. Words are Cheap! I go with people who have experienced and know what their doing - Hillary Clinton. She works really hard and is very intelligent.
On the Republican side, it's got to be McCain.
*I'm not going to vote for a person because of his mixed.
* Polarizing is better than Flip-Flopping as what many Democrats that are against her are fond of doing. *Decisive Hillary will put an end to the Democrats Flip-Flopping ways.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 3, 2008 8:05:30 GMT -5
Based on Legislative records and experienced - Hillary Clinton. I'm not swayed by people who make nice speeches but have a weak foundation. Words are Cheap! I go with people who have experienced and know what their doing - Hillary Clinton. On the Republican side, it's got to be McCain. I like McCain too on the Republican side. Regarding Hillary, if she wins, who will hold real power? Is it her or Billy or Chelsea or all of them? And experience in what? Corruption and traditional politics?
|
|
|
Post by buff on Feb 3, 2008 8:13:42 GMT -5
Hillary will hold power because she is more decisive than Bill. Don't jump into a cheap conclusion as you always do. Hilary has no history of corruption. What are you accusing her of (thinking based on the weird way you ask questions). Traditional politics in the United States is not bad. In fact the US became a world Super Power because of traditional politics. maybe you are comparing it with traditional politics in the Philippines which is bad. Hope you know the difference between apples and oranges. Even the New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton. Watch the CNN Debate! CLEARLY, The CNN Debate shows that Hillary has the best ability to lead: www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/videos.dems.debate/index.html
|
|
|
Post by black mamba on Feb 3, 2008 10:34:12 GMT -5
FFS, she's been playing the experience card forever. 8 years as the President's wife doesn't mean much to me. GWB's dad was President for 4 years and that obviously didn't make him the brightest crayon in the box.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 3, 2008 21:35:55 GMT -5
Hillary will hold power because she is more decisive than Bill. Don't jump into a cheap conclusion as you always do. Hilary has no history of corruption. What are you accusing her of (thinking based on the weird way you ask questions). Traditional politics in the United States is not bad. In fact the US became a world Super Power because of traditional politics. maybe you are comparing it with traditional politics in the Philippines which is bad. Hope you know the difference between apples and oranges. Even the New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton. Watch the CNN Debate! CLEARLY, The CNN Debate shows that Hillary has the best ability to lead: www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/videos.dems.debate/index.htmlHey, don't get personal with me again, as you always do. We are debating issues here, not your or my character, ok? I suppose that's a Filipino thing ... to always personally insult someone in a debate. Oh sure New York Times endorsed Hillary. But tell which state again does she represent in the U.S. Senate? Also, even the Kennedys (Sen. Edward Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg), who are close friends with the Clintons, are endorsing Obama!!! That says a lot. The Clintons have been shrouded in corruption controversies since they came on the national stage. Have you forgotten the Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate scandals, presidential pardons of their criminal relatives/friends, etc.? Why should I judge a candidate's ability to lead based on CNN debates? You yourself said "words are cheap".
|
|
|
Post by buff on Feb 4, 2008 6:15:24 GMT -5
The only reason why Edward & Caroline Kennedy are backing Obama is because they said he reminds them of the late John F. Kennedy. And for what reason? Because he makes toned, well-modulated speeches but that’s the only comparison and nothing more. He’s got nothing on JFK. Their admiration for him is mythical because of charisma. But what could charisma do in the White House? Nothing - It doesn’t know hot to solve the Irq war, the mortgage crisis, etc.. Secondly, state Hillary’s involvement in the corruption cases you’re accusing her of. What did she do? How come she was not charged in the US Court if it’s true or your accusations are merely political smear campaign. Let me say this to you clearly, words without action is cheap. That is Obama - All words, No Action, and a bit Lazy & would hide behind Edward Kennedy because he really doesn’t know how to run things. I bet you he’s going to flip-flop too with some flip-floppers behind him. At least with Hillary, you can really see real action on her programs.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 4, 2008 7:32:59 GMT -5
The only reason why Edward & Caroline Kennedy are backing Obama is because they said he reminds them of the late John F. Kennedy. And for what reason? Because he makes toned, well-modulated speeches but that’s the only comparison and nothing more. He’s got nothing on JFK. Their admiration for him is mythical because of charisma. But what could charisma do in the White House? Nothing - It doesn’t know hot to solve the Irq war, the mortgage crisis, etc.. Secondly, state Hillary’s involvement in the corruption cases you’re accusing her of. What did she do? How come she was not charged in the US Court if it’s true or your accusations are merely political smear campaign. Let me say this to you clearly, words without action is cheap. That is Obama - All words, No Action, and a bit Lazy & would hide behind Edward Kennedy because he really doesn’t know how to run things. I bet you he’s going to flip-flop too with some flip-floppers behind him. At least with Hillary, you can really see real action on her programs. This is what's written about the Filegate controversy: In 1998 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated President Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter. In 2000 Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate, stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute her. source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversyHow can you trust a president who makes "factually false statements"? Of course, she was able to get out of it cos she's a brilliant lawyer who knows all the loopholes. Again, she and her husband pardoned a whole bunch of criminal relatives and friends of theirs as part of Presidential Privilege. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does not provide any avenue to reverse their pardons. So, do you think those pardons are excusable? So, you're suggesting that Senator Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg are shallow people for supporting Obama simply because of his polished words and charisma resembling Prez JFK? Again, the Kennedys are long-time friends of the Clintons, which makes their decision even more shocking. Speaking of flip flopping, didn't Hillary flip flop too on the recent issue of providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in NY? First, she was for it. Then, became against it. So, you don't know where she really stands. By the way, it's not just taking action that matters. It should also be the right action. Hillary did take action by voting "yes" on going to war in Iraq, while Obama has always opposed the Iraq war. And look at the mess that we've gotten ourselves into because of it.
|
|
|
Post by buff on Feb 4, 2008 8:32:10 GMT -5
The Kennedy and Kerry like Obama because they could used him as their puppet while they play puppeteer. Obama has been using Edward Kennedy as his coach in the senate because he doesn’t know anything. It’s obvious that the two would like to get a piece of the US Presidency that have eluded them for years or even decades. They think that Obama’s charisma would be the answer to their life-long ambition to control the US, that they are all out to disregard friendship for ambition because they couldn’t make the decisive Hillary Clinton their puppet. What is Kennedy and Kerry’s motto behind this – Obama you’ve got charisma based on your modulated voice, even though you stutter in the middle of speech, we’ll be behind, you. You’ve got the charisma, we’ve got the brainiacs, let’s play Puppetry on the US Presidency.
The truth is Obama was absent during the voting time on Iraq War. He did not really vote that time as he was absent. Why was he absent in this important event? Because he was indecisive. He didn’t have a stand. He was claiming he opposed the war but he excused himself by being absent because he doesn’t really know what to do. That is Cowardice. His action did not stand up for his words. Saying that opposing the war yet hiding away come voting time is the worst character for a leader.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Feb 4, 2008 9:17:36 GMT -5
The Kennedy and Kerry like Obama because they could used him as their puppet while they play puppeteer. Obama has been using Edward Kennedy as his coach in the senate because he doesn’t know anything. It’s obvious that the two would like to get a piece of the US Presidency that have eluded them for years or even decades. They think that Obama’s charisma would be the answer to their life-long ambition to control the US, that they are all out to disregard friendship for ambition because they couldn’t make the decisive Hillary Clinton their puppet. What is Kennedy and Kerry’s motto behind this – Obama you’ve got charisma based on your modulated voice, even though you stutter in the middle of speech, we’ll be behind, you. You’ve got the charisma, we’ve got the brainiacs, let’s play Puppetry on the US Presidency. The truth is Obama was absent during the voting time on Iraq War. He did not really vote that time as he was absent. Why was he absent in this important event? Because he was indecisive. He didn’t have a stand. He was claiming he opposed the war but he excused himself by being absent because he doesn’t really know what to do. That is Cowardice. His action did not stand up for his words. Saying that opposing the war yet hiding away come voting time is the worst character for a leader. Your facts are plainly wrong. It is true that Obama was absent during the Senate vote on the Iraq War. Why? It's because Obama was not yet a U.S. Senator at that time. Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in November, 2004, while the Iraq War started in March, 2003. Nonetheless, while Obama was still an Illinois State Senator in 2003, he did express his opposition to the Iraq War, even though he had no actual vote in the matter. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
|
|
|
Post by buff on Feb 4, 2008 9:59:03 GMT -5
What a good excused for him not in the Senate, he’s not pressured to vote. It is easier said than done. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a Kennedy puppet. I bet it was his coach Ed Kennedy that urged him to run even though he’s not fit enough. So who wants a dummy president?!
|
|