Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:30 AM
 
1,989 posts, read 4,464,533 times
Reputation: 1401

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Because Bush is irrelevant. He is gone in three months. The only relevance Bush has is he is a convenient distraction to go to when people ask for details about your plans and point out that much of it is self contradicting and illogical. Well at least we won't have eight more years of Bush right?
Bush is relevant in that posters here attack Obama predicting that he's going to "take away all our rights!!!"

Chances are, those posters are Republicans. Whose own President has presided over an administration that has taken away more rights and subverted more "American" principles than any President in recent memory.

The relevance is irony. People screaming "The sky is falling!!!" when in fact, it has already crushed their complacent heads.


Predictions about anything Obama or McCain will do are utter BS. If you can't rely on campaign promises (and we all know you can't), you certainly can't rely on candidates taking actions they haven't even "promised" in their platforms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:32 AM
 
1,989 posts, read 4,464,533 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Got a link?

Anything?
Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage


"When the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil unions as president."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:33 AM
 
4,604 posts, read 8,229,314 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino View Post
LOL. The GOP are the ones who want to take away your freedoms. Freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of sexual preference . . . Government intrusion into your personal life is the biggest form of Big Government!
Joe the Plummer can help you with that...

Quote:
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.
Quote:
The administration of Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland has said the information was not improperly shared and that there were no political motives behind the checks.
Yeah. Right.

Quote:
The Dispatch has uncovered four uses of state computer systems to access personal information on Wurzelbacher, including the child-support check authorized by Jones-Kelley.
??? Not politically motivated ??? Yeah. Right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,647 posts, read 26,366,979 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by cohdane View Post
Try McCain on for size:

Tax cuts for 100% of Americans?

He'll be able to do that, pay for all his new spending AND A WAR and balance a budget?

Stay in Iraq "as long as it takes" regardless of our own economy imploding at home, our own infrastructure crumbling into ruin, our own family members getting maimed and killed over there, despite the fact that IRAQ IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD WHERE WE CAN GET OIL?

Can you say "Vietnam"? McCain can. And does a lot. It's all he thinks of....how the soldiers came home in defeat from an unpopular war. Never again. Never again. Never again. He's vowed it. We'll stay so our soldiers "can return victorious." The guy's on a mission and it's not for our country. It's personal.
In 1979 then President Carter faced a difficult decision with regard to a failing puppet government that the CIA installed in Iran. He decided to let the Iranian people decide their own fate by not installing another leader. The end result was what we have there now, an Islamic dictatorship that oppresses it's own people at least as badly as the Shah's government did. The Iran-Iraq war would have never taken place if Carter had the determination to hold onto Iran and the 1.2 million people, many of them children, would have not died in a brutal war that saw the use of chemical weapons. The Soviet Union seeing the weak resolve of our president invaded Afghanistan less that two months later costing 2 million lives. Now Iran is a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons that they will use. And all this happened because we wanted other nations to like us.

As for the rest, cutting spending is the key. Newt pulled it off in the '90s. McCain is a step in the right direction. Obama is a license to steal for the congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,525,338 times
Reputation: 24780
Default 1984 come to Life - OBAMA, BIG BROTHER & YOU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undeader View Post
I can't believe people aren't outraged by the Big Brother policies Obama plans on bringing to the US.

Big Brother will tax you more and pass it out..

Big Brother will work hand in hand with the Press to ensure you get his side of the story.

Big Brother will "withdraw" from conflict instead of defeating it... Hence continuing the conflict indefinitely and keeping us in a constant state of fear and helplessness.

Big Brother will consolidate power among his siblings.

Big Brother will disarm the people.

Big Brother will dig into the private past of any critics or opponents.

Big Brother will remove any media scrutiny from his realm.

and on and on and on and on......


Obama is Big Government. Big Government is Big Brother.

What do we really know about this man and his plans?

Is anyone else seeing what I see?

It's just you and George Orwell against the world, kid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 09:40 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,453,111 times
Reputation: 4799
Default Sadly people only see the face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undeader View Post
I can't believe people aren't outraged by the Big Brother policies Obama plans on bringing to the US.

Big Brother will tax you more and pass it out..

Big Brother will work hand in hand with the Press to ensure you get his side of the story.

Big Brother will "withdraw" from conflict instead of defeating it... Hence continuing the conflict indefinitely and keeping us in a constant state of fear and helplessness.

Big Brother will consolidate power among his siblings.

Big Brother will disarm the people.

Big Brother will dig into the private past of any critics or opponents.

Big Brother will remove any media scrutiny from his realm.

and on and on and on and on......


Obama is Big Government. Big Government is Big Brother.

What do we really know about this man and his plans?

Is anyone else seeing what I see?

Big Brother has an entirely different meaning today. Big brother means someone who could possibly have cared for a child without a father or it could mean a TV show where you win money for being deceitful. *hypnotizing you* Big brother is good.....Big brother is good.....Big brother is good.....Big brother is good.....Big brother is good.....Big brother is good.....Big brother is good.....Big brother is good.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 10:24 AM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,475 posts, read 12,241,893 times
Reputation: 2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
In 1979 then President Carter faced a difficult decision with regard to a failing puppet government that the CIA installed in Iran. He decided to let the Iranian people decide their own fate by not installing another leader. The end result was what we have there now, an Islamic dictatorship that oppresses it's own people at least as badly as the Shah's government did. The Iran-Iraq war would have never taken place if Carter had the determination to hold onto Iran and the 1.2 million people, many of them children, would have not died in a brutal war that saw the use of chemical weapons. The Soviet Union seeing the weak resolve of our president invaded Afghanistan less that two months later costing 2 million lives. Now Iran is a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons that they will use. And all this happened because we wanted other nations to like us.

As for the rest, cutting spending is the key. Newt pulled it off in the '90s. McCain is a step in the right direction. Obama is a license to steal for the congress.

Exactly. I remember when this went down. But you must remember that there is a great deal of Obama's voting base who is very ignorant of history and its lessons. It's this "he's hip, he's cool" sort of hypnotism that's taken over alot of the younger voters, and as to the older ones....heck, I don't know. The best they can come up with is "No more Bush" which isn't very intelligent or well thought out. It's simply reactionary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 11:16 AM
 
1,989 posts, read 4,464,533 times
Reputation: 1401
I'll let Dick Cheney answer that.

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

Cheney: No.


Q: Why not?


Cheney:Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone.
There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.
Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.



YouTube - Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,647 posts, read 26,366,979 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrippingJay View Post
YouTube videos? That's your best source?! Spare your crap, this current mess can be shared by BOTH parties. Regardless, Bush has been asleep for the past 8 years to not do anything to foresee this problem.

Why are so many true conservatives not endorsing McCain?

True conservatives?

For exampe.....



My best source is their (Democrats and particularly the CBC) own words.

Bush was working to reform oversight of the GSEs as early as 2001.



McCain cosponsored S. 190 in 2006, and still plenty of time to stop the Democrat's run away train.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2008, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,647 posts, read 26,366,979 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by cohdane View Post
Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage


"When the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil unions as president."


Nice double-speak!

Which state's position does he support? The original position voted in by the people to ban same sex marriage or the new position of the state after an activist court overruled the will of the people.

Sounds good right?

That's because it's BS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 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 - Top