Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a ****** and I fear for our country if she is elected. Obama is just as bad.
Obama is weak, HE will destroy America, he will appoint judges that will stay long after his run of stupidity is over... We have learned just recently in California what a liberal judge thinks about the People ... The Majority voted and made a law banning same sex marriage. Can you imagine having 100 of these judges making every decision for you, no matter what you want , the ones who are supposed to have a voice and the real say it will not matter .. it is a very scary thought..These are a few more reasons why not to vote for this liberal piece of scum.
1) He IS the most liberal senator in Congress.
2) He wants to repeal DOMA.
3) He's an admitted junkie (coke and pot, mostly).
4) He's an elitist.
5) He hangs out with crooks and racists.
6) He himself is a racist who considers babies to be "punishment".
7) He attends a church that pledges allegiance to the "mother continent Africa" and the Black Value System.
8) He Opened his Campaign in the House of a Guy that Bombed the Pentagon, and still thinks it was right, and serves on a board with him. GOOD FRIENDS HE MAKES RIGHT?
9) His wife is a whiney elitist who believes she was able to get ahead in society in spite of America's attempt to hold her down; she graduated from Harvard. And she's only just now proud of America because her husband has made it this far (or maybe because he's running for president and anti-Americanism isn't popular in America, except in Hollywood, Berkeley, and a few other socialist hotspots).
10) He browbeats the hard-working Americans to give money to the poor and downtrodden, while he himself only gives a paltry 1% (though it did shoot up as high as 4% in the years after pursuing the presidency).
11) He won't make any tough decisions.
12) He doesn't understand fundamental economic principles, except of course for his favorite - Marxism - which will allow him to take from those who work and give it to those who will more than likely **** it away (e.g., the government). Case in point - the oil companies. They received a low 7% return on investment, yet because they are hedged against inflation risk (high oil prices are a direct result of the plummeting dollar, not oil profiteering), and benefiting from China & India's rapid industrialization, he wants to take it away. This, of course, will only entice oil companies to close, restricting supply ever further and thus increasing the price of gas. Meanwhile, schools like Harvard and OSU (yes, The Ohio State University) sit on billion dollar endowment funds and cry to Congress about needing subsidies. Fact: Harvard raked in a profit of $7 BILLION last year of their endowment fund investments alone - a 23% return! Why aren't we going after their profits?
13) He wants to deny law-abiding citizens their constitutional right to keep firearms.
14) He's not good at the job he has now; He only bothers to vote some of the time (he missed one-third of the votes in 2007), which, based on his record is actually probably better for America.
15) The guy is so cold-hearted that he actually supported legislation that allowed doctors to deny basic, fundamental care to babies so long as they were botched abortions. So, if you tried to kill your baby and failed, you simply wait until he's born, then just let him die.
16) He's a liar.
17) He's a cry-baby who only whines about how bad things are, but if you press him for details on how he can make it better, he has no plan; or worse, if he does have a plan, and it's to raise taxes so he can spend more on his liberal propaganda programs (like Midnight Basketball).
18) He wants a government controlled universal healthcare program. Universal healthcare should be one of our goals, but it should be provided by the open-market and NOT be administered in any way by the government. Think about having to get a kidney from the BMV. By the way, if the government did ever become the country's sole provider of healthcare, you can kiss beer, cheeseburgers and cigarettes goodbye, because the first thing our omniscient lawmakers would do is pass a series of laws to outlaw smoking, drinking and obesity in order to "bring down costs". Remember, Nazi Germany did the same thing. The actual Nazi Socialist Party Slogan was: "Your body belongs to the state. Your body belongs to the Fuhrer. Health is not a private matter."
Barrack Hussein Obama is just bad. He's bad in the Senate, and he'd be even worse as the President. Frankly, I only think he got this far because the majority of his supporters are tripping over themselves to prove that they're not racist. (note: When Condi decides to run, she has my vote).
By the way, while HE may not be a self-described Muslim, you can't overlook the fact that both his father and step-father were radical Muslims (fortunately, though, his mom was just an atheist), and that he spent time studying in Indonesia - the most Muslim nation in the world.
Hmm, I don't really know where to go with this one. It is so simplistic and completely wrong that it should be classified as having no merit whatsoever. I don't see where retaining a strong military can be construed as war-mongering. If you had any grasp of historical precedent, you would understand that "Peace through Strength" is basically a truism.
I hope Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, she is winning the popular vote ( and in some cases delegates/ I think. ) I ran into a person and we got caught up all up in the election, and brought to my attention that they had voted for Barack Obama. I simply asked why, told me they were tagged in by the word " change " but failed to see the truth. Mention if they could vote again without hestitation they would vote for Hillary Clinton, hope she gets the nomination as well.
Woot Hillary
I'm voting for McCain.
However, if I had to choose between Hillary and Obama there is no question in my mind that Mrs. Clinton would be a better president. She is a serious candidate...he is, well I know it's overused but he is an empty suit. Nothing but a good teleprompter reader. And he does look good and is a motivational figure. But this is all. I still can't figure out what actual jobs he had that would prepare him to be president.
Can someone tell me just what a "community organizer" does?
I actually kind of admire Mrs. Clinton. She has worked her b*tt off and I think the DNC is shafting her. The Dems have handled her very poorly.
What is up with "the courts don't vote with the will of people crying." I have a news flash " The court isn't supposed to decide cases on the will of the people." This is why there appointed for life. The court protects minorities from the at times tyrrannical majority. If the court decided with the will of the people we would still have Jim Crow laws in effect today. So please stop complaining when the court doesn't vote with the will of the people. Also with the two conservatives that Bush has appointed there needs to be two liberals appointed to even things out again.
What is up with "the courts don't vote with the will of people crying." I have a news flash " The court isn't supposed to decide cases on the will of the people." This is why there appointed for life. The court protects minorities from the at times tyrrannical majority. If the court decided with the will of the people we would still have Jim Crow laws in effect today. So please stop complaining when the court doesn't vote with the will of the people. Also with the two conservatives that Bush has appointed there needs to be two liberals appointed to even things out again.
Wrong. What you have is activist liberals forcing their agenda on the public and creating new "rights" that clearly aren't in the Constitution. Most Americans don't want this "progressive" garbage but yet the Left is perverting the judiciary to achieve their aims. I understand what you were trying to say about many federal judges being appointed and not elected so as to not be influenced by the public. However, contemporary leftists have warped this basic tenet of our society and it must be brought to a halt.
Also, Bush simply replaced two conservatives who left with two other ones(Alito for O'Connor and Roberts for Rehnquist). The court is very centrist right now. The last thing this nation needs is two more liberals on the Supreme Court.
The only way for America to be safe is for us to have like 100 times bigger of a millitary than the rest of the world combined. 99 or 98 times simply will not suffice, nor will simply having the biggest millitary in the world without it being able to take on the entire rest of the world if necessary, since they all hate us for our freedom and we must be prepared for their jealous united uprisings.
The only way for America to be safe is for us to have like 100 times bigger of a millitary than the rest of the world combined. 99 or 98 times simply will not suffice, nor will simply having the biggest millitary in the world without it being able to take on the entire rest of the world if necessary, since they all hate us for our freedom and we must be prepared for their jealous united uprisings.
Irrelevant sarcasm serves no purpose in this discussion.
No, it's not an insult. It was a general comment to any person who thought along the lines I described, which were an exaggeration of the extremism suggested by the OP. Stupid is not an insult when it describes something that is illogical. "Loony", "kooky" and "naive" are insults when there's no substance behind them. The OP and I have made up anyway.
But to address the pacifism I feel... I know human beings are aggressive creatures, perhaps too much so. All this aggression is rooted in fear. I just don't see how a parabolic dependence on weaponry actually results in safety. If your enemy stood before you naked without a weapon would you kill him? Can people not see themselves in their enemies? How much damage do we need to create, to witness, and ultimately, to experience before we realize this method is counterproductive? I assert that I have no enemies. That is my right and I create no enemies wherever I go. If someone thinks I am their enemy, that's their thinking and doing, not mine. Why do I need to give their foolishness any of my time and energy? This is a tough issue that humanity must resolve quickly. There is no solution when both sides are always wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
