The Official Election '08 thread

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

marvel_freak_42
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:55 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby marvel_freak_42 » Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:36 am

I can't believe I'm saying this: I think I may vote for McCain.
Founder of the Western Orthodox Branch of the Church of Butters!

"The world will know peace when humanity is extinguished."
-- False Awakenings
Cartman's Top Enemy
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:37 am

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby Cartman's Top Enemy » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:05 pm

Big-Will wrote:
Cartman's Top Enemy wrote:It's a shame that it took us this long to realize that a President lying about getting a blowjob to Congress is NOT worst thing a President could possibly do.

Who said it was? Still, he did commit perjury - lying under oath. Why hasn't Bush been asked to speak under oath like Clinton was?


1. Dubya already lied under oath when he was Gov. of TX:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/09/bush/

2. He lied to Congress when he said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

3. He was asked to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission, but he refused.

4. He wouldn't let his aides take an oath, either:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... OOV9T1.DTL

5. Wouldn't the President's oath of office--"...and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"--technically be an oath?
His attack, his goading and his quick departure from the discussion...clearly demonstrates that [Mr.Hat_DX27], like Stovepipe_Jam, Killahertz9, TheTowlieConnection and others before him, has no integrity.
HellStrykeXL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:47 am

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby HellStrykeXL » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:39 am

Once upon a time there was a young man/kid/teenager named "F2XL" who lived in fear that someone would dare express an opinion that he felt didn't have effective references, and didn't quite line up with his personal views. He would nuke threads with several thousand word long posts, and nearly every sentence he wrote had at least a hundred something references.
He was really insecure about anyone trash-talking the president over the Iraq war, and after some negotiation, he left BBS.

(yes, this IS a reminder of just how far free speech used to get back in the days where a flamewar happened every other day :D )

Now the following will sure bring back old memories.

Cartman's Top Enemy wrote:1. Dubya already lied under oath when he was Gov. of TX:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/09/bush/


This isn't nearly as bad as lying about oral sex relations, not to mention the fact that most of this is article is hypothetical, and was written prior to the 2000 presidential elections in what was likely an effort to smear his image to tilt the odds for Gore.

2. He lied to Congress when he said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”


About a dozen flashbacks are going through my mind from the above quote, not just from an old BBS thread in which this was addressed (It was a long time ago, so luckily I don't think anyone can resurrect it), but also from my own personal memories prior to the March 2003 invasion.

Rather then making an endless explanation about it, I'll just direct you to the following link:

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

3. He was asked to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission, but he refused.


Does this by any chance have to do with the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories? I would like a reference (yes, that was a tribute to the old way of debating on BBS about a year ago)....

4. He wouldn't let his aides take an oath, either:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... OOV9T1.DTL


Maybe he had a reason, maybe he didn't, but that's nothing compared to.........

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O40JJG1&show_article=1

5. Wouldn't the President's oath of office--"...and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"--technically be an oath?


Yes, it would. But you kinda sorta have to give insight as to what ways he broke this oath. I'm sure there must be quite a few to enlighten me on right?


Oh that's right, the November elections....well I've mostly settled on McCain, but take away the military service, the surge support, the opposition to the Rumsfeld strategy, and just a couple other things......and I would not vote for him.

Hearing him insist that he's a die-hard Bush-loving conservative kind of reminds me of his difficulties in raising his hands above his shoulders, he's not fooling anyone. :)
ShaneHaughey wrote:
Sizzling Lynn wrote:A guy in my grade eleven Bio class last year was dared to lick a rat's balls and he went along with it...is that considered manly?

No, that is the opposite of manly.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby triplemultiplex » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:50 pm

HellStrykeXL wrote:Oh that's right, the November elections....well I've mostly settled on McCain, but take away the military service, the surge support, the opposition to the Rumsfeld strategy, and just a couple other things......and I would not vote for him.


That's interesting, because if McCain wasn't so hawkish on Iraq and clarified his position on a few other things, I'd have to seriously consider crossing the aisle in the general. Particularly if Hill-dog was the nominee instead of going down in flames. I bet I'm in agreement with McCain on important issues 80-85% of the time.

John McCain would've been the perfect guy to put in the White House back in 2000. He was the only candidate who wasn't a total douche. There's an alternate universe out there where President McCain made far better post-9/11 foreign policy decisions and America is way better off because of it. Goddamn you, Karl Rove and your slime machine!
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
PIPaul
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby PIPaul » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:31 pm

I'm sadly starting to hope Mc Cain will get in, rather than Obama. He hasn't got the expierience to make a good politician; look at the last person who got elected with so little prior political expierience (Bush JR.) to see. His obsession with race is a little extreme too (his inability to say his pastor was wrong in saying white man is the devil and made HIV to kill the angelic african americans) where I'd like someone who tackes inequality wherever he sees it, in whatever race. But I suppose he's better than Mc Cain, who tackles NO inequality in anyone, no matter what the race or gender. I wish politicans would be voted in on their race no their age, sex, religion or race.

Iraq is overplayed; it's how people plan to deal with the internal crisis in the USA that interests me.

yes, this IS a reminder of just how far free speech used to get back in the days where a flamewar happened every other day

Those days are over now?

This isn't nearly as bad as lying about oral sex relations

I think lying about policy is more important than lying about your private life. People can compartmentalise; have a different work and home personality. Clinton seemed more honest in his dealings at work than he was at home. Also, does honesty really matter, if the policies help people, as they certainly did more than Bush's?

Does this by any chance have to do with the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories?

All that stuff about Bush is out of the issue. He's dead in the water no matter weather he was fgood or not, a political liability. Who's succeding him is the big question. It doesn't matter how bad the last republican was, all that matters is how bad the next one would be, and it seems, pretty darn bad from Mc Cain's policies.
marvel_freak_42
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:55 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby marvel_freak_42 » Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:57 am

I really don't think McCain would be that bad of a candidate. To me, he probably wouldn't be as self-righteous as Bush. If he goes up against Hillary, I'd definitely chose him. If it came down to him and Obama, I'd probably still go with him. Obama doesn't have the experience for one, and I also think that America is still at least thirty years away from voting a black man as president.

And, allow me to be blunt, but I have a theory of what will happen if Obama is elected: He'll be in office for about six months, but then some ignorant f*cks will decide "I don't want no black man in the WHITE House!" What ensues is a race war that will make Rodney King look like a Disney Channel flick. I mean, they killed the only Irish Catholic president in the history of the U.S. What the hell do you think they're gonna do to Obama?
Founder of the Western Orthodox Branch of the Church of Butters!

"The world will know peace when humanity is extinguished."
-- False Awakenings
Olivia42
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:03 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby Olivia42 » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:44 am

I watch the presidential elections with about as much interest as I would a sports tournament or the Oscars. It's terrible, apathetic and selfish, I know, but I'd rather take enjoyment out of something that seems to affect me just as much.*

Anyway, I've had a celebrity crush on Obama ever since the 2004 Democratic convention, I thought McCain was the choice candidate in 2000, and I've looked up to Hillary as a role model ever since I was a young girl, so I'll be happy in any case come November.

*The phrase "Somebody bet on the nag" comes to mind when I characterize the race in this way, but somehow I think it would be taken in the wrong way.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby triplemultiplex » Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:00 pm

PIPaul wrote:I'm sadly starting to hope Mc Cain will get in, rather than Obama. He hasn't got the expierience to make a good politician; look at the last person who got elected with so little prior political expierience (Bush JR.) to see. His obsession with race is a little extreme too (his inability to say his pastor was wrong in saying white man is the devil and made HIV to kill the angelic african americans) where I'd like someone who tackes inequality wherever he sees it, in whatever race.


Ooh, the perfect opportunity to bitch about the overplayed Wright 'controversy'.

A black man expresses his frustration with race relations in America and gets raked over the coals for weeks on end by the media. Meanwhile, when right wing religious freaks like Robertson or Donahue or the late Falwell spout their racist, sexist, xenophobic bullsh*t, the media says, "Oh that's just those guys..." like they're an elderly relative who can't control their own bowel movements. The stuff those crazy white guys say is so much worse than anything this Wright fellow has said. And yet the Republican candidates they support never catch any flack from the media for it.

What a ridiculous double standard.

As to the experience thing, that's secondary to the question of "Are you a good leader?" Bush is a bad president because he is a bad leader. With Obama, we've got a guy who has actual leadership skills. And I believe those skills trump any experience deficiencies he might have.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
PIPaul
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby PIPaul » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:11 pm

When white people say anything about blacks, they go to jail. I don't think Falwel was running for president either. Do we want a racist as president, no. Well, I for one don't, weather he's white or black or what, I don't want a biggot as President.

Obama has the power to win a publicity contest like the presidential race, but can he lead the nation, listen to advisors, and bring in Social Security for ALL (not just the undeserving "poor blacks" but the evil, scummy deserving poor whites as well) I don't think so.

I think Marvel is seriously underestimating the power of reason in the USA. Obama will win, that's a givven now. No one is going to burst in and kill him for being black, in the same way no one killed Bush for being, well, Bush. Now the question is, will he be a good president. That I think, he won't be. Hope I'm wrong, but think I may be sadly right.
marvel_freak_42
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:55 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby marvel_freak_42 » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:30 pm

"Power of reason?" There was a secret poll conducted that said that 15% of Americans would not vote for a black president no matter how qualified. And the reason no one killed Bush is because of who he is... the EDIT: son of a former president and an all-too-important tool of the special interests. He was untouchable because they wouldn't let him be touched. Now, about the Obama thing, I'm not willing to bet any form of money on my claim (I'm not sure if "theory" was the right choice of word), it's just a hunch and a feeling, and nothing more.
Last edited by marvel_freak_42 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Founder of the Western Orthodox Branch of the Church of Butters!

"The world will know peace when humanity is extinguished."
-- False Awakenings
PIPaul
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:29 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby PIPaul » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:02 am

15% of americans = retards. Not big enough proportion of the population to sway the nation. I heard the figure was WAY bigger against Jewish or Gay presidents... not to mention a muslim or (ohnoes!) an athiest president.

People don't seem to care how qualified any president is. I wonder how many people would vote for a black man no matter how unqualified, because that's what seems to be happening with Obama, who's WAY less qualified than Clinton, who has her husband to fall back on. You're really voting for Bill if you vote for Hill, the way I see it.

When I said Bush I meant GW, but...
HellStrykeXL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:47 am

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby HellStrykeXL » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:11 am

3MX wrote:John McCain would've been the perfect guy to put in the White House back in 2000. He was the only candidate who wasn't a total douche. There's an alternate universe out there where President McCain made far better post-9/11 foreign policy decisions and America is way better off because of it. Goddamn you, Karl Rove and your slime machine!


MF42 wrote:I really don't think McCain would be that bad of a candidate. To me, he probably wouldn't be as self-righteous as Bush.


Olivia42 wrote:I thought McCain was the choice candidate in 2000


....And it's a damn shame we didn't have this guy in office from 2000 on up. I think we can all agree that McCain was (and is) far more qualified then our current president to handle what's going on over there. We would probably be a lot closer to having maybe half the brigades we have now in Iraq if the CiC had listened to his advice on putting in more troops.

3MX in actually proposed a good method for determining how many troops should be in a country which I think could apply to all wars from this day on. Simply take the amount of police needed for a city like New York or LA and find a factor of the two, and then see how much bigger Iraq is by comparison and increase the first factor accordingly. That would mean about a quarter of a million troops in Iraq from the beginning of Saddam's fall, and I personally think we'd be better off if we actually had that number personnel to keep the initial insurgency from forming. 8)

3MX wrote:That's interesting, because if McCain wasn't so hawkish on Iraq and clarified his position on a few other things, I'd have to seriously consider crossing the aisle in the general. Particularly if Hill-dog was the nominee instead of going down in flames. I bet I'm in agreement with McCain on important issues 80-85% of the time.


I personally don't agree with McCain on all the issues either, I don't know anyone who does. The only real reason he rose from the ashes above Rudy was probably from electability, especially when compared with other candidates like Huckabee.


PIPual wrote:Those days are over now?


Thankfully. :)

I think lying about policy is more important than lying about your private life. People can compartmentalise; have a different work and home personality. Clinton seemed more honest in his dealings at work than he was at home. Also, does honesty really matter, if the policies help people, as they certainly did more than Bush's?


True, I personally liked Clinton in terms of the fact that he was one of those candidates who was willing to go against his own party occasionally in some instances. While I totally disagree with him on the "assault" weapons ban, I kind of see him as a democratic McCain for some odd reason.... :?

All that stuff about Bush is out of the issue. He's dead in the water no matter weather he was fgood or not, a political liability.


Indeed, he's no longer center stage anymore, and probably will be forgotten after November.
ShaneHaughey wrote:
Sizzling Lynn wrote:A guy in my grade eleven Bio class last year was dared to lick a rat's balls and he went along with it...is that considered manly?

No, that is the opposite of manly.
Cartman's Top Enemy
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:37 am

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby Cartman's Top Enemy » Sun May 25, 2008 3:45 pm

HellStrykeXL wrote:Once upon a time there was a young man/kid/teenager named "F2XL" who lived in fear that someone would dare express an opinion that he felt didn't have effective references, and didn't quite line up with his personal views. He would nuke threads with several thousand word long posts, and nearly every sentence he wrote had at least a hundred something references.
He was really insecure about anyone trash-talking the president over the Iraq war, and after some negotiation, he left BBS.

(yes, this IS a reminder of just how far free speech used to get back in the days where a flamewar happened every other day :D )

Now the following will sure bring back old memories...[and then I'm quoted and then HellStrykeXL adds some bullsh*t]


Oh, that's a nice, albeit inaccurate, comparison. Of course, disarming your opponent by insulting him first is a cheap debate tactic. Sorry it didn't work for you. I'll get back to this when it can be explained how a news story is "hypothetical" and then whenever I feel like it :D
His attack, his goading and his quick departure from the discussion...clearly demonstrates that [Mr.Hat_DX27], like Stovepipe_Jam, Killahertz9, TheTowlieConnection and others before him, has no integrity.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby triplemultiplex » Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:38 pm

This is interesting; Vice President Hillary Clinton?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

It's definitely premature to say this, but back before Super Tuesday, I did make this prediction:

On Jan. 30, I wrote:My Democrat prediction: Obama wins and at the convention, they get Clinton on as his running mate.


So it's beginning to maybe look like I called it.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
butters kenny
Posts: 10135
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:19 pm

Re: The Official Election '08 thread

Postby butters kenny » Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:58 pm

go obama
I Wasn't choking you I was just hugging your neck

R.I.P Chef for realz this time

( chef joined the sith so why don't you?)

R.I.P Billy Bonka

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests