Heroes of Might and Magic Community
please log in.! Register | Today's Posts | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Heroes 1 (Heroes 2 (Heroes 3 (Heroes 4 (Heroes 5 (Heroes 6 ()

Login:     Username:     Password:    
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: United States President: 2008
Thread: United States President: 2008 [ This thread is 90 pages long: 1 (2) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ]
bjorn190
bjorn190


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
posted December 07, 2005 12:10 PM

Seriously, some guy named obama can never win an election in the US.. it's too close to Osama.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted December 07, 2005 12:18 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 7 Dec 2005

(To dkolb)  

Ahhh -- a strategist!  Welcome!  Its so good to see someone take possession of actual facts and process the outcome when contemplating such things as presidential campaigns.  (It's such a shame presidents no longer seem to be able take possession of actual facts and process the outcome when contemplating territorial invasions.  Perhaps you should consider getting into politics.)

Anyway, very interesting observations.  I have another question.

What do you find distasteful about Obama's politics?  Any specific examples you care to share?

Also, if you haven't seen it yet you might find my thread "See Congress Implode" interesting.  Practically nobody else seemed to, but then you and I seem to be cut from similar cloth.

You don't by chance junk out on C-Span, do you?   (hee hee hee)
____________
I have PMS and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted December 07, 2005 12:22 PM

Bjorn!!

Old Friend!  So nice to see you're still around!


____________
I have PMS and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dkolb
dkolb


Promising
Known Hero
Nay Nay and Aslan Protector
posted December 07, 2005 12:43 PM bonus applied.
Edited By: dkolb on 7 Dec 2005

Thank you Peacemaker.

Well sometimes I really like Obama all the way around. When he makes comments like this:
"We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq." -from his Keynote adress.

And another thing that he did (in my opinion) was to support Condoleezza Rice when she became Sec. of State.

On the surface he looks like a Moderate Democrat and he has high diplomatic skill (which I view as a virtue) but I think he is too idealistic, he believes that all things can be fixed dimplomatically or with enough money. My belief is to try diplomacy at first but if it doesn't work don't hem and haw, get the job done. Do it efficiently, and do it ASAP. Throwing money at it won't work. The Public School system comes to mind. Obama is into education but he just wants to throw money at it rather than try other ideas such as vouchers. That seems to be the problem. You can increase how much welfare people get but that won't decrease people on welfare. You can give money to public school but that won't make the kids smarter. Many societal ills cannot be solved by money. It would be nice if they could but they can't more often than not.


My problem with Obama is mainly on social issues. Thus logic doesn't factor in as much as do beliefs. He is a staunch liberal and I disagree with Democrats the most on social issues. To name one his stance on abortion I cannot approve of, and I cannot reconcile that no matter how nice or professional the man is. Somethings cannot always be worked out. If I accepted him with this belief as a default, I would not be taking a stand against something that I personally believe to be wrong and thus I would have no moral backbone.

One of the problems I had with Kerry was that he said that he personally did not agree with abortion but that he feels that women have the right to choose. He may feel that that statement will place him in a positive light by getting conservatives to think that he doesn't approve of it, but I think some may have interpreted that as not taking a stand on either.
Liberals wanted him to go all or nothing, none of this wishy washy "I don't personally feel" business, and Conservative said, "If you feel soooo strongly that do your best to stop it."

The thing with Obama is that I think he is genuine about his beliefs, and really does support things like abortion. This pits me at odds with him politically more than even Kerry because this guy I take seriously.

Obama opponent in the Illinois elections was Ambassador Alan Keyes.
I view him as with great respect and have heard him speak many times. However one thing I cannot say for him is that he is tactful. He is as strong in his convictions as a man can possibly be. So for his courage I admire him, but he could not relate to the public, and some of his views were absolutely insane. I'm for guns but Keyes was in favor of machine guns to be legal. Part of playing the "political game" is learning to relate to people. Obama does this well Keyes does not. His iron-will gain him the highest possible respect for those that agree with him but will push away those that don't.
So I say all that to say this.
Obama knows how to play politics. Keyes didn't.
Keyes may have took a stand for what was "right" but taking a stand doesn't get you anywhere anymore.

Obama knows how to relate to his people, and how to relate to democrats in general.
He knows exactly how his party stands on issues and will reinforce them fully.

Because he is so entrenched and respected within the party I dislike his politics even more as he is a serious threat, to my parties control.
He is very dangerous and right now in Illinois the Pubs have completely collapsed. In fact they are just plain corrupt. The conservatives Republicans are at the Moderate's throats and vice versa and the only ones winning are the democrats. And they will continue to win for a long time. Our offering for senate will probably be a RINO (Republican in name only) named Judy Bar Topinka.
They didn't get the memo apparently about not alienating their constituency.

Oh! I found the link!
http://www.keyesobama.com/

I will never forget these debates. They were very heated.
Too bad I never got to vote. I just turned 18 this year so I couldn't really vote for anybody.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Trogdor
Trogdor


Legendary Hero
or it's nothing
posted December 08, 2005 12:15 AM

Just for the moment...........

There is a war in Iraq and it's just another Vietnam. And who was in charge of America when we lost at Vietnam? A REPUBLICAN. They have a republican in charge at the moment and the Iraq war is being handled terribly. The Democrats did a better job of handling wars, giving the allies victory in the 2 world wars. If you want all the chaos to end in Iraq don't vote Republican.
____________
"Weaseling out of things is
important to learn. It's what
separates us from the animals
... except the weasel." - Homer
Simpson

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dkolb
dkolb


Promising
Known Hero
Nay Nay and Aslan Protector
posted December 08, 2005 03:16 AM
Edited By: Conan on 9 Dec 2005

Quote:
The Democrats did a better job of handling wars, giving the allies victory in the 2 world wars.


I'll answer the rest of your post later but this I just find funny.

Giving the allies victory?

Is this some divine liberal gift?

Did Woodrow Wilson bestow on the allied forces the ability to defeat the enemy?

You make it sound like the Liberal Democrats are soley responsible for the success of WW1 and WW2. This is quite the statement. If that is what you mean. If I am twisting your words please clarify.

All of the Allied forces did their part in the war.

Forget all the brave soldiers in other countries who were fighting for their lives before we even came into the picture.
Forget the Republicans who fought by Democrat's side.  

Maybe that isn't what you mean, but if it is then that is all the more reason I am gravely worried about our country should people of your mindset come to power.
____________
"...once you bought your first green dragon, there was already a necromancer with six or seven boners out and about-Lord_Wook"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Khayman
Khayman


Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
posted December 08, 2005 09:11 AM
Edited By: Khayman on 8 Dec 2005

My Prediction for 2008

Soemtime this year, Senator Joe Lieberman (Democrat-Connecticut) is going to change his party affiliation to Republican.  He will go on to win the Republican primaries, and then Condoleeza Rice will be selected to run as Vice President.  Lieberman/Rice 2008.  You heard it here first!  (Seriously, though, I think you should add both of the aforementioned candidates to your list, Consis.)

As for Democrats ending wars, let me throw my two cents in real quick.  Woodrow Wilson was a p*ssy, especially when it came to his weak post-World War I '14 Point Plan.'  One of his proposals was the League of Nations, which may have been a fine idea, except he could not even persuade his own country, the United States of America, to join the league.  If you would like one more example of Woodrow Wilson's ineffectiveness and Democratic short-sightedness, you need to look no further than his blundering intervention at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after the war.  Georges Clemenceau (France) wanted to thoroughly crush and dismantle Germany after their unabated European aggression that almost destroyed Europe, while David Lloyd George (Britain) wanted somewhat more lenient reparations to be made by Germany.  Once again, Woodrow Wilson and the always kindler & gentler Democratic  party, felt that it was best to go easy on Germany, mostly under the belief that German productivity (manufacturing, industry, trade, etc.) and its economy were necessary for the rebuilding of Europe.  In one sense, you can understand this type of thinking, especially if you are a liberal, because in a liberal's mind everyone, regardless of their actions, deserves a second (or third or fourth) chance, regardless of the severity of the action or crime.  Also, a liberal sees the world as a place where everyone SHOULD get along, given the right set of circumstances.  Well, you can see for yourselves where this type of thinking gets you, because you need to look no further than 20 years down the timeline after Woodrow Wilson helped to lighten the restrictions and reparations made by Germany...Germany began its second quest for European conquest and world domination, otherwise known as World War II.

So Europeans, you can thank the weak and near-sigted Woodrow Wilson for your pains and sufferings less than 20 years after the end of World War I, because he was too much of a p*ssy to hammer Germany into total submission at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.    
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Russ
Russ


Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
posted December 08, 2005 11:45 AM
Edited By: Russ on 9 Dec 2005

Quote:
It seems like we send money to other countries to "show how good we are" but how far has that gotten us? People still hate the United States and are going to hate the U.S. just because of what it is.
See... when you send your money in form of bombs it doesn't make people like you. And if something is hated, there is ALWAYS a reason. It can be a bad reason such as religion, etc, but that's not the case here. I think it is your attitude that is hated everywhere. You think that you are better than everyone else, you think that you are always right and you think that this gives you the right to act like you own everything around you.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted December 08, 2005 12:05 PM

Khayman,

I didn't include Lieberman or Rice for good reason my friend. Rice hasn't shown any interest at all and Lieberman showed very early in the last election that he does not accurately represent a majority of either party. I don't think Rice will run for president. If I thought she would then I'd add her to the list. Joe Lieberman is a failed candidate for party nominee.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
dkolb
dkolb


Promising
Known Hero
Nay Nay and Aslan Protector
posted December 09, 2005 10:44 AM

Quote:
See... when you send your money in form of bombs it doesn't make people like you. And if something is hated, there is ALWAYS a reason. It can be a bad reason such as religion, etc, but that's not the case here. I think it is your attitude that is hated everywhere. You think that you are better than everyone else, they think that you are always right and you think that this gives you the right to act like you own everything around you.


hmm since this is addressed to be (I think)
I would like to ask rather Russ believe I personally have this attitude or rather this is the attitude of my country or my political party.

I would also like Russ' opinion as to what we should do instead of sending money or bombs.

If it is to stop sending money or bombs to other countries than I agree 100%!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Russ
Russ


Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
posted December 09, 2005 11:26 AM
Edited By: Russ on 9 Dec 2005

Quote:
hmm since this is addressed to be (I think)
I would like to ask rather Russ believe I personally have this attitude or rather this is the attitude of my country or my political party.
Yes, that was in reply to your post. I don't know you personally, so I can't say if this is your attitude, however, I did notice that this is a common attitude among the Americans I did get to see. It is definitely the attitude of your political party. It is also the attitude of the only alternative US political party, but fortunately for all of us, to a much lesser extent.
Why do I say this about your country? There are many reasons but the most recent one that was quite shocking to me was the new US nuclear policy. USA can now launch a PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE on someone it thinks might be a threat in the future. Think about it to fully understand it.
Quote:
I would also like Russ' opinion as to what we should do instead of sending money or bombs.
If it is to stop sending money or bombs to other countries than I agree 100%!
Why are you a republican then? G.W. made it clear that he is on a democratic crusade which I would assume involves bombing people into "democracy" without ever considering their opinion.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dkolb
dkolb


Promising
Known Hero
Nay Nay and Aslan Protector
posted December 09, 2005 11:55 AM

"Why are you a republican then? G.W. made it clear that he is on a democratic crusade which I would assume involves bombing people into democracy without ever considering their opinion."

Because contrary to popular belief, Republicans aren't puppets. We can think for ourselves. I support president Bush for the most part, but I do not always agree with him. Some in my party are that way, but I am not. After 9/11 I believe we were justified in going to Afganistan. If another country is at least partially responsible for an attack that kills citizens of my country I believe we should strike back. As the saying goes, "an eye for an eye" That in my mind was not as much of an attack as it was self-defense. However when it comes Iraq I am torn between factions. At the time, I was all gung-ho and supportive of it. If Iraq did pose a Nuclear threat, and what with Bush Sr. and Saddam's history, it seemed obvious that we should eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons, from a dictator who has motive and reason to do us harm. However it was almost like Bush put a clause in there about diposing Saddam and establishing a democracy. And when little to no evidence of WMDs came out alot of us felt like we were tricked. I can sorta see the point democrats make when they say that Bush wanted to pick up with Saddam where his father left off. Call it the pride of a Texan if you will. When I look back on it I wish we didn't go there, I believe that we should for the most part leave other countries alone. I differ from the democrats in this because many I talk to believe that we should become "more culturally aware" and more "open" to suggestions from the U.N. I think that we need to be friendly politically with other countries, and be open to trade but I do not feel that we should be involved in other countries affairs or that they should have a say about us in the U.N.
But back to Iraq, I believe that although I dislike that we are there and the motives behind it, me and even many democrats believe that we should see this thing through until the end. It is crucial for the morale of the troops and the safety of those who are being trained to fight for their own country. If we set a date something similiar to Vietnam might happen. I agree with one democrat's idea that for every 3 Iraqi battalions trained, 1 American battalion can come home.
And when it is all said and done, will the world be better off without a dictator like Saddam Hussein? The answer is yes, but did we have the right to depose him?
I do not think so.

With so much fighting going on we are unprepared for what happens within the country. When such things as Hurricane Katrina hit us the only thing we can do is spend more and more money.

I am also ashamed at how my president has dealt with the border. It is truly shameful, that although we can "dominate" even other countries on the outside we cannot even protect ourselves internally. The borders must be tightly enforced.

So the answer to your question is no, I do not think we should ever send finacial aid to other countries nor should we attack other countries unless they attack us.        

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Russ
Russ


Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
posted December 09, 2005 12:25 PM

Very nice summary. Thanks for sharing your point of view. Btw, what will you do if the Republican party nominates another trigger-finger?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dkolb
dkolb


Promising
Known Hero
Nay Nay and Aslan Protector
posted December 09, 2005 12:42 PM
Edited By: dkolb on 9 Dec 2005

hmm the problem is it's hard to tell who will end up being a trigger finger. You could argue that by looking up a politicians record you could tell whether or not they are prone to meddle in other countries affairs.
But the thing is politicians are fickle creatures.
There was a time when Joe Lieberman, and Al Gore were pro-life.
Times and opinions change, rather they were enforced by a party or not, it is in the end a politician's choice to go to war.
That being said:    
Their are times to be hawks and times to be doves.
Reagan was a great president in my mind and got us out of the Cold War because he knew when to act tough and when the act diplomatic.
Carter knew how to act like a dove but not a hawk.
Bush knows how to act like a hawk, but not a dove.
I don't want either a Carter or a Bush. I want someone who is willing to defend my country until the bitter end but not go looking for enemies or try to show off our military might.
And right now for the republicans I cannot honestly say who is prone to be overly hawkish or overly doveish.
That is very hard to tell especially out of context.
If Jeb Bush hold similiar ideals to GW then I believe that he might be trigger happy.  

If I did know that one would drag us into another war that was not truly just I would be hesitant to vote at all. Or if I had to vote, I would vote for the lesser of the two evils. The reason I am basically called a Republican is not because I like the people of the party or that I hate the other side. I am that way because they hold most of the same ideals that I do. If the Republicans ever forsake those ideals then I will vote against them. Republican and Democrat, I have learned in many cases is no more than a label. It is the ideals that are associated with both parties which is important.
I do not believe in party loyalty, because anyone can lazily vote R or D without ever stopping to think what R and D stand for.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Daystar
Daystar


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
posted December 09, 2005 07:39 PM

I'm hoping for Hillary Clinton, the world needs a new era.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted December 09, 2005 09:08 PM

=)

I will vote for a "new era" also.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted December 10, 2005 03:06 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 10 Dec 2005

Quote:
Lieberman showed very early in the last election that he does not accurately represent a majority of either party...  Joe Lieberman is a failed candidate for party nominee.


Lieberman may not accurately represent a majority of his party, but the stats show that neither party currently represents the majority of Americans at large.

It is possible that Lieberman very well may represent a majority, however.  The much larger majority of Americans are moderate.  Currently a majority of Americans, while not supporting the way Bush has handled the war, nonetheless continue to believe that US troops should stay until stability is established, because the alternative is to pull out, let Civil War erupt, and ultimately watch the entire region destabilize and become even more dangerous, requiring another bloodier, messier intervention later.

The real clencher is that a vast majority of Iraqis also hold this position.  While our presence is both unpopular and uncomfortable for the average Iraqi citizen, the current stats coming from Iraq (through the ambassadors themselves) suggest that some 90% of Iraqis believe that the US pulling out right now would be a disaster.

Now that Lieberman has stood up and said just that this week, his bone-headed "party" is accusing him of "defecting," "supporting Bush," "party treason," "being pro-war," etc. etc. etc.

I am none of these things, and I absolutely agree with Lieberman.  Just because we (Bush administration) screwed this thing up so badly to begin with doesn't mean we should screw it up even worse by bailing just because things are screwed up.

Now if I weren't persuaded by the representatives from Iraq itself that the infrastucture is beginning to stabilize, the army and police forces grow increasingly effective by the week, and other positive signs that we ARE helping to clean up the mess we made, than I would think we should start pulling out.  But the evidence I've heard FROM THE IRAQIS suggests otherwise.  Our media is not covering the situation accurately from all accounts by both informed, highly educated individuals from within Iraq as well as from those Americans who have returned from tours in Iraq, civilian and military.

Brian Lamb did a call-in program on Washington Journal (C-Span's morningly program) the other morning, asking those who have done tours of Iraq to call in and give their impressions of whether the American media is doing a good job of keeping the constituency informed as to what's going on over there.  Almost hands down (there may have been one caller out of thirty who dissented) they all said the media are doing a very poor job, and that Americans do not have a clear picture of the progress in Iraq.

I learned more about what's happened over the past year in Iraq during that one prgraom than I have after an entire year of watching the news.
____________
I have PMS and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dkolb
dkolb


Promising
Known Hero
Nay Nay and Aslan Protector
posted December 10, 2005 07:13 PM

I agree with Peacemaker, but I also agree that I don't think Lieberman will run, because it is rare for a politician to "rise from the ashes" that was his bid for the presidency. I do know many people that like Lieberman. I like him as well. He is popular with Moderates from both sides but I don't think he will get support from the people from the far left, or the far right.
I think we can all agree that this is going to be a very interesting election.
I can see many choices for the Republicans as well as the Democrats. One thing I am almost certain is that Hillary is going to run, because I think this may be her last chance.
____________
"...once you bought your first green dragon, there was already a necromancer with six or seven boners out and about-Lord_Wook"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted December 11, 2005 01:16 PM
Edited By: Consis on 11 Dec 2005

The Real Deal

No matter who you think of as a democratic candidate, you must inevitably imagine them face to face with Giuliani. This would be a great conflict for me personally. I love this man. New Orleans and hurricane Katrina led me to wonder how different it might be if he'd been mayor for them too. He is a great man and I truly don't know if I would unequivically vote for Hillary over Giuliani. I love her but he has proven so much to me.

Whomever the democratic candidate, they would still have to face off with Giuliani.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted December 16, 2005 10:21 AM

As I Was Saying . . .

Guess who decided to conduct a poll of Giuliani and Clinton?
Quote:
The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated Clinton and Giuliani were the early favorites to win their respective party's nomination. Clinton snared the majority of the Democratic voters polled. And with more than two years before the primaries, she was ahead of her two nearest potential competitors by nearly 30 percentage points.

The 2008 presidential race could be the most wide-open contest in more than five decades.

With President Bush unable to seek another term and Vice President Dick Cheney insisting he won't succeed him, the table is set for the first race since 1952 in which neither a sitting president nor a vice president is on the ballot. In that race, Republican Dwight Eisenhower defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson by a landslide electoral vote of 442 to 89.

This tiny little survey seems infinitely lacking. There are so many other possible candidates; the most feared being Florida's governor Jeb Bush. It's almost as if no one wants to admit it. I don't want to admit it either but only a fool would choose to ignore his glaring ambition and political clout; not to mention his part in the American-made Bush dynasty. And what about this past hurricane season or those to come? Jeb seems to handle the affairs of Florida better than those of his fellow Gulf Coast neighbors.

I certainly don't think Jeb would trump Rudolph but one cannot ignore Jeb's significance.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 90 pages long: 1 (2) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1840 seconds