Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

I'll keep saying her name...

Kathleen Sebelius (Gov of Kansas) will be Barack's VP...

however, I have warmed to Wesely Clark, and he would be great to off-set Obama's weakest point and the one most likely yo be used by the GOP... national security

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, MSG. :beer:

I like Jim Webb a lot, and I think he'd be an excellent VP. He'd bring undeniable military bona-fides (military experience, reputation, and respect; ie, military cred) to the ticket. He's smart; he's passionate; and he's progressive but not so much that he could be labeled an extremist or a radical. His achilles heel could be the positions he's expressed in the past about women's roles in the military. That might not sit well with Hilary supporters who Obama is trying to bring on board the O-train. I don't think there's any validity to the criticisms of Webb in this regard (not when you consider his positions in context of the times in which they were made), and personally I think he'd a great VP.

Wesley Clark would be a solid choice given his military credentials and his connections with the Clinton campaign. I also like Bill Richardson as a possible running mate with Obama. He has bona-fide foreign relations credentials; and he'd help bring New Mexico and other southwestern, Latin-populated states to Obama (if he's not tapped to be VP, I think Richardson will likely end up being Obama's Secretary of State). I think Kathleen Sebelius would be an excellent VP too; she'd certainly bring in the women votes from Hilary's camp, but I'm a little concerned that an African American presidential candidate and a woman VP candidate on the same ticket may end up being too much change at one time for the majority of Americans to feel comfortable with. If she is tapped for the job I'd personally fully support her as the choice though.

I think Hilary won't get the nod for the same reason I don't think Sebelius will get the nod and because Hilary as VP would, I think, result in a "too many cooks in the kitchen" situation.. especially when you add Bill to the mix. I think Hilary is going to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and her name will probably go into the title (or subtitle) of the universal health care act that gets enacted into law during Obama's presidency. ;)

[btw,.. Hilary just publicly threw her full support behind Barack Obama and she

unequivocally encouraged her supporters to support Obama. Good going, Hilary!! :thumbsup::beer: ]

John Kerry is not out of the question as a poss Obama running mate; nor Chris Dodd, nor Joe Biden (though Biden will probably end up being Sec of Defense). John Edwards has said he's not interested in being VP, which is fine because once he's elected I think Obama will nominate Edwards to be AG.

Obama has many excellent people to choose form. Aside from assessing the personal qualifications of his possible ticket mates and considering how well they'll serve in the role of VP, Obama also has to consider how they can help him win the general election. I think he'll end up picking a running mate that all democrats (and just enough independents and disaffected-moderate-repubs) will be able to enthusiastically support. ;)

Heck,.. who knows.. maybe Obama will cross party lines and tap anti-Iraq war

republican.. and frequent burr under Bush's saddle.. Chuck Hagel to be his VP? :whistling:

What are your thoughts about Obama's VP options, MSG?

:hippy:

Thanks for your excellent discussion of the possible VP candidates, Hermit.

I was a supporter of Obama before I had given much thought to the idea of who would make the best VP candidate. I never thought that Clinton would be a good choice for a VP primarily because as you note, there would be “too many cooks” in the kitchen (I’ve also heard what would transpire described as a "ménage-à-trois").

I agree - I don’t think that many/some Americans are ready or willing to accept both an African American and a woman or an African American and a Mexican American on the ticket.

I like Kerry for several reasons - not the least of which was the manner in which he conducted himself (dignity and class) even as he was "swift-boated". Unfortunately, I believe that some might find him too liberal.

In order to balance the ticket, I think most Dems realize that a good choice would be a more moderate (older) white male, (probably a southerner), who is stronger than Obama in areas of national security. I think that the economy is going to be a critical issue in this election – maybe even more so than national security.

My husband and I like Jim Webb – for the reasons that you list – but also because we are Independents who lean left on some issues and right on others. Webb (who had been a Republican until he left the party primarily because of the Iraq War) is someone who I would consider fundamentally conservative on several key issues. I agree with you on the gender issue – to me it's a non-issue and we do have to consider the era in which those positions were established and those decisions were made.

We also like John Warner, the governor of Virginia, because he has both executive and private sector experience, has supported bipartisan legislation, and is a fiscal conservative. He is running for U.S. Senate so I don’t know if he is being considered.

In addition to Webb, another name mentioned as a possible VP candidate is Sam Nunn (one of the more moderate Democrats who often clashed with what he perceived to be Bill Clinton’s too-liberal policies). Ed Rendell has also been mentioned but, I believe he lacks national security experience.

Yes, I’ve also heard the name Chuck Hagel (a Republican who at one time considered running as an Independent) mentioned as either a long-shot VP choice or, in a bi-partisan cabinet, as Secretary of Defense.

Thanks again.

:hippy::beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points, MSG.

Seems you, your hubby and me are in agreement

then that Jim Webb is a top-tier VP possibility, eh? B)

:beer:

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great points, MSG.

Seems you, your hubby and me are in agreement

then that Jim Webb is a top-tier VP possibility, eh? B)

:beer:

:hippy:

Thanks very much Hermit. Yes, right now I think it's safe to say that all three of us agree that Jim Webb is a top-tier VP possibility. :beer:

Here's an Opinion piece that Webb wrote for the WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110009246

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't decided who to vote for for sure yet. Because time is a wasted go, however looks as if the elephants are about to get a charming run.

Why?

The American economy is about the shits, and people are tired of lame excuses for something which should be explained in simple terms.

People are gonna vote according ti how much property they own and cash they have in the bank. The Iraqi qar has run it's course. Mesopotamia has been fighting with neigbours for centuries.

Come back/

<pardon sp goofs>

Edited by ledbaby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobama could do a lot worse than Jim Webb.

A true American hero:

Webb received the Navy Cross for actions on July 10, 1969. The citation read:

“ The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam. On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex that appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out. Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers. Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade that detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel. Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search that yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker. By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.[6]

I wonder why it was downgraded (if it was) to a navy cross it seems like it should have been a CMH from this description.

edited to ad: probably because he wasn't killed I suppose

Edited by Uncle Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that what i belive about McCain, but yes, i rather have the Bush over the barrak any day of the week. But what i said about McCain being bush third term, is what most supporters of obama think. No the strong supporters won't care what obama does or did, but the ones who aren't drinking that much koolaid, may change thier mind when the hear more about this great speaker from chicago.

I could tell you five problems i have with McCain and i could tell you five problems that he will have with the american people, which some i don't belive in or agree with him about. but for all you cheerleaders out there for Nobama, can you point to five things you disagreee with and five things he will have problems with the american people. I bought the guitar of my dreams, I know everthing that is great about it, but most of all, i know everthing that is bad, and i decided that the good out wiegh the bad. Thats the way you should look at the canidates. Not only judge them on the good, but judge them on the bad.

I don't think Obama should pick anybody that has lost to Bush. If Kerry or Edwards were to be VP. McCain is just going to say that they claim im pres. bush third term and he picks the loser from the election that got bush the 2nd term.

Than again McCain did lose to Bush.

Edited by Pb Derigable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To set the record straight, although I'd broken no forum rules, I got banned because a mod incorrectly thought I'd restarted a thread that he'd deleted the night before (when in fact, I'd started a new thread topic) and he didn't appreciate my response to his threatening me in a PM, which I hadn't appreciated.

For those who don't recall the two thread topics being referred to: the first thread topic was about "gay marriage" (a discussion about the fact that California had just lifted its ban on gay marriage); and the second thread topic was about the "intolerance of intolerance" (a discussion about how many people who condemn intolerance are themselves quite intolerant of the opinions and points of view of people who express opinions different than their own).

After deleting the second thread the mod sent me a PM in which he rudely and incorrectly admonished me for "restarting a thread that had just been deleted"; he concluded his PM with the threat "Final warning". I corrected him in my response PM. I pointed out how the second thread had been a different topic, and I suggested that if he'd read the second thread he surely would have realized that it was a different topic than the first thread. I concluded my PM by saying "And btw, save your 'final warning' threat for the kids who might be impressed by it; I'm not". I few minutes later, I was banned.

I'd broken no forums rules or guidelines, so as far as I can tell I was banned for not being sufficiently intimidated by the mod's threat.. or perhaps for being slightly sarcastic in response to having been threatened by the mod.. or maybe simply for being right about the two thread topics being different. Maybe the mod felt it was easier to ban me than to admit he'd made a mistake (in assuming I'd restarted a thread he'd just deleted) and apologize for it. I don't know.

What I do know is that I did not restart a thread that had just been deleted; I broke no forum rules or guidelines; and my response to having been unnecessarily threatened by a mod was, at the very worst, slightly sarcastic. Did I deserve to be banned for that? Now you know the facts; decide for yourself.

I've received no responses to emails trying to resolve this matter privately with the forum admin, and I'll probably be banned again for publicly setting the record straight here. Oh well. At least now you (those who see this post before it gets deleted, anyway) know what actually happened.

cheers, friends. :beer:

:hippy:

jamriot.jpg

B)

Wow, now that's really pathetic. That mod should be ashamed of himself for resorting to such boorish behavior.

Now I'll probably be the next one to be banned. Not that it matters; I hardly have the urge to post here anymore these days anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back Hermit.

A big thumbs up on the discussion... interesting reading.

*back to lurk mode*

(...and Cletus, I know the feeling...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who think Hillary's supporters will automatically vote for nobama now like automatons are greatly underestimating the anger/ intelligence of such voters.

I'd like to hear the opinions of any of the nobama supporting women here regarding the highlighted part. Almost every woman I talk to feels this way, be they dems or repubs. I don't know any nobama supporters to ask. Thanks B)

From "The Hillary Hotline"(edited for length, read the rest here ):

I Have A Dream

by Nancy Kivlen

Now it's a nightmare.

Today I registered as a Republican for the first time in my life.

I have been a lifelong democrat, but today my family and I left the Democratic Party and registered as Republicans.

We will be supporting John McCain in November.

"We didn't have to re-register, we could have simply voted for McCain in November, but we wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party. We are unhappy, disappointed, and angry at Obama, his supporters, the media and the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama was Selected, Not Elected by the Democratic party.

"No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her" -Susan B Anthony, 1872.

The way in which Obama got the nomination is similar to how Bush won in 2000 against Gore. All votes were not counted and they were not counted equally."

"Obama has a history of disenfranchising voters. Not only did he not want the votes counted in Florida or Michigan, he did not want a revote to take place.

I am not surprised, when Obama first came to Chicago and ran for his state senate seat in IL he was successful because he had the incumbent, Alice Palmer and his other opponents removed from the ballot in a legal loophole maneuver. Consequently, he ran unopposed and the popular, qualified incumbent Alice Palmer was OUT!

Obama has lied about his relationships with Rev Wright, Father Pfledger, and convicted terrorist William Ayers. He has also lied about his association with convicted felon Tony Rezko.

Does anyone else find it odd that demands for Hillary to leave the race escalated on a day when his "friend" Rezko was convicted on 16 counts of bribery and fraud that the news media failed to report on?

He has called all these relationships "unfortunate".

This is the politics of "Hope" and "Change"?

Are you kidding me?"

"How can I vote for McCain?

EASY. This is my protest vote.

Sometimes the PERSON running (or not running in this case) is MORE IMPORTANT than the issues.

Sometimes if they will not listen, you have to find a way to make yourself heard.

For the 6-10 million Hillary supporters that plan to vote for McCain, or not vote at all - we are lucky. The Republicans actually picked a MODERATE candidate!!! John McCain has similar views to democrats on: global warming, immigration, gay rights (he believes same sex couples should have legal rights of some sort), and campaign finance reform."

"This is about how Hillary Clinton has been UNFAIRLY treated as a Woman candidate for President: by the media, by Obama, by his supporters and by the Democratic Party.

If we do not correct it now and speak out about it now, then it will not change.

We must protest.

This is about WOMEN'S RIGHTS and telling the Democratic Party that the 60% membership of women in the party count too.

I no longer share the values of a party that selects it's nominee through a series of discriminating and disenfranchising methods. Where certain votes count and others do not.

My Goal is to Have Hillary Clinton as PRESIDENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Not just ANY Woman - THE Woman, Hillary Clinton.

I wish she'd leave the Democratic Party and run as an Independent. She won't do that, but voting for McCain opens it up for her to run in 2012.

It is the fastest path for her to be elected barring the possibility that my new party will find enough trash in Obama's background to have the Super Delegates change their mind at the Convention. Obama is the 'presumptive' nominee.

And finally, I do not believe Obama has the experience, qualifications or Character to be President. 1 year in the Senate (2 years running for office) does not qualify him. In fact, if he won - he would be the LEAST QUALIFIED, LEAST EXPERIENCED President we EVER had in our ENTIRE History. "

"In the end everyone makes up their own mind about who to vote for and why. That's America.

But, for me. November, 2008 - I will send a message to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party:

"No You Can't". "Not This time."

John McCain for President 2008"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from another Hillary site:

2008 Final Primary Results: Hillary Clinton = 17,802,300 votes. Barack Obama = 17,501,751 votes. Winner selected by the DNC and its superdelegates? Barack Obama! In the interest of Unity, congratulations to our "winner" and thanks for the new math, Chairman Dean. It's change we can believe in!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Bill....

I'm sure Hillary faced some unfairness but nothing that any other woman wouldn't deal with in any given situation. She's tough, she can handle it. She didn't get to where she is without dealing with this her Entire career.

Did Obama face some racism? Yes, and he has dealt with it his entire career. It's a good thing that people have had to look at these issues during this primary and we will be better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A quote from another Hillary site:

2008 Final Primary Results: Hillary Clinton = 17,802,300 votes. Barack Obama = 17,501,751 votes. Winner selected by the DNC and its superdelegates? Barack Obama! In the interest of Unity, congratulations to our "winner" and thanks for the new math, Chairman Dean. It's change we can believe in!

that website just reminds me of why I voted for Obama.

Edited by allthekingshorses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Bill....

I'm sure Hillary faced some unfairness but nothing that any other woman wouldn't deal with in any given situation. She's tough, she can handle it. She didn't get to where she is without dealing with this her Entire career.

Did Obama face some racism? Yes, and he has dealt with it his entire career. It's a good thing that people have had to look at these issues during this primary and we will be better for it.

Thanks for the reply B)

How long have you been supporting BHO? Were you a HRC supporter at anytime in this race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the reply B)

How long have you been supporting BHO? Were you a HRC supporter at anytime in this race?

I've been supporting Barack Obama since Day 1 ;)

She was my 2nd choice... I really would have loved an Obama/Clinton ticket... in that order. But, she lost my support back in January or February. I didn't care for her attacks against Obama and "his supporters" I will be shocked if he picks her for the VP. I will be absolutely shocked.(and I really hope they don't pick her)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will be shocked if he picks her for the VP. I will be absolutely shocked.(and I really hope they don't pick her)

nobama's team came up with a way to make sure that won't happen. They let it be known that they would insist on Bill releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library if she wanted to press for the job.

Edited by Uncle Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A quote from another Hillary site:

2008 Final Primary Results: Hillary Clinton = 17,802,300 votes. Barack Obama = 17,501,751 votes. Winner selected by the DNC and its superdelegates? Barack Obama! In the interest of Unity, congratulations to our "winner" and thanks for the new math, Chairman Dean. It's change we can believe in!

that statistic does not count caucus states...

Hill bitched about Florida and Michigan not counting... but she does not count caucus votes

to be honest, im not sure why she doesnt... but it shows more of her hypocracy when florida nad michigan should count (to give her the lead) and caucus states should not count (because she would lose her lead)

I dont know how the rest of you feel, but hillary's concession speech was a half-hearted endorsement of Barack and an applicalication for 2012

im not sure if it was bill or PB who said it... but it is gonna be very difficult for the die-hard Hill-raisers to join Barack... they'll be bitter to the en...

but those people are the true anti-bush, anti-rebuplican and anti-Iraq people, and would be total hypocrits to vote for McCain rather then Barack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im not sure if it was bill or PB who said it... but it is gonna be very difficult for the die-hard Hill-raisers to join Barack... they'll be bitter to the en...

but those people are the true anti-bush, anti-rebuplican and anti-Iraq people, and would be total hypocrits to vote for McCain rather then Barack

I said it, but how many of the 17million are die hard Hilrod fans. Maybe a quarter, (which is also the number that says they won't vote obama) but the other 75% thought she been there longer and know what the fuck she is doing. Ready on day one. but they are not going to take a chance with another bush term with McCain, so they will vote Obama. I don't think it's fair to say McCain is bush thrid term, but im also not a liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who think Hillary's supporters will automatically vote for nobama now like

automatons are greatly underestimating the anger/ intelligence of such voters.

Actually, the assumption that Hillary voters will vote for Obama instead of McSame is giving them credit for being intelligent and is a validation of their anger (as democrats) at how repubs have mismanaged this country over the last 8 years.

It seems pretty obvious to me that if Hillary supporters trust and believe in Hillary (a diehard democrat/liberal) as much as they claim they do, then they'd trust her when she encourages them to support Obama.

Why would Hillary supporters (die hard democrats, mostly) abandon the democratic party and suddenly support the republican party just because Hillary didn't get the nomination? Why would they vote for a republican who fundamentally opposes Hilary's benchmark isssue: universal healthcare? That would make no sense at all, now would it?

Why would they vote for McCain whose position on so many issues is opposite than that of Hillary's, when they could vote for Obama whose positions on issues are virtually the same as Hillary's?

Universal healthcare:

Clinton: supports

Obama: supports

McCain: opposes

Roe v Wade:

Clinton: supports

Obama: supports

McCain: opposes

Permanent Bush tax

cuts for the wealthy:

Clinton: opposes

Obama: opposes

McCain: supports

Ending the war in Iraq:

Clinton: supports

Obama: supports

McCain: opposes

Going to war with Iran:

Clinton: opposes

Obama: opposes

McCain: supports

Waterboarding/torture:

Clinton: opposes

Obama: opposes

McCain: supports

Indefinite detention/

suspension of habeus corpus:

Clinton: opposes

Obama: opposes

McCain: supports

Domestic spying:

Clinton: opposes

Obama: opposes

McCain: supports

Telecom immunity:

Clinton: opposes

Obama: opposes

McCain: supports

Katrina commission:

Clinton: supported

Obama: supported

McCain: opposed

9/11 commission:

Clinton: supported

Obama: supported

McCain: opposed

Alberto Gonzales:

Clinton: criticized

Obama: criticized

McCain: praised

Federal funding for public schools:

Clinton: supports

Obama: supports

McCain: opposes

Regulated capitalism:

Clinton: pro-regulation

Obama: pro-regulation

McCain: anti-regulation

NAFTA:

Clinton: renegotiate

Obama: renegotiate

McCain: keep as is

Gun control:

Clinton: supports

Obama: supports

McCain: opposes

Assault rifles ban:

Clinton: supports

Obama: supports

McCain: opposes

Right To Bear Arms:

Clinton: supports

Obama: supports

McCain: supports

So, given the candidates' positions on this sampling of issues, would

it more intelligent of Clinton supporters to vote for Obama or McCain?

Would be intelligent of Clinton supporters to vote for McCain out of spite

and anger that Hillary Clinton didn't win the democratic party nomination?

It's a no-brainer, huh? ;)

As the campaign rolls along, democrats will quite naturally unite in overwhelming numbers behind Obama. Sure, there will be some defectors, but their number will be so few as to be essentially negligible,.. particularly since they'll be more than sufficiently offset by the number of independents (and disaffected moderate republicans) who will choose to vote for Obama rather than More Of The Same McCain.

All the liberal, democratic women who supported Hillary and are angry that she didn't get the nomination need be reminded of just one thing when they have even so much as the slightest inclination to consider voting for John McCain: he will nominate right wing judges to the Supreme Court and they will overturn Roe v Wade. I think its fairly safe to say that the female base of the democratic party is not going to vote for a candidate who will threaten Roe v Wade.. no matter how angry they are that Hillary didn't win the party nomination. ;)

The political trump cards Obama is holding:

Secure Roe v Wade (A)

End the war in Iraq (K)

Universal healthcare (Q)

End Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (J)

Change in Washington (10)

Look at that! ..he's holding a democratic royal flush! :thumbsup:

royal_flush.jpg

:beer:

The McPandering mixed-bag political hand McSame is holding:

Opposes Roe v Wade (J)

Continue Bush tax cuts (9)

100 year war in Iraq (6)

Condones torture (4)

Amnesty for illegal immigrants (2)

total_gambler_3164_8.jpg

covereyes.gif

You got to know when to fold em, Johnny. :whistling:

:P

:hippy:

Obama '08!! :cheer:

Edited by Hermit_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take out Watergate? It's pretty impossible...You think it's over-exaggerated that Nixon was a crook? Paid for guys to break into the Democratic Campaign headquarters then tried to cover it up?

Well okay, if we take out Watergate, what have we got?

Detente with the USSR and China, all over-seen and organised by Henry Kissinger...

You had a US currency crisis because of the Vietnam War, the rapidly expanding US Budget deficit and Nixon's depleting Gold Reserves, which, along with Yom Kippur in 1973 and the resulting oil crisis, drove America into a deep recession by the mid to late 70's... Which was blamed on Jimmy Carter, when in fact it was the fiscal policy of Nixon that caused it. Nixon defaulted on the Bretton Woods agreement which made the US Dollar the global currecny reserve, as all foreign currencies were converted into US dollars which were then convertible into gold.

"As a consequence of Nixon’s move, the US dollar declined against most currencies over the following decade, and declined 95% against gold as the price of gold shot up from *$35 per ounce to a high of $850 per ounce in 1981. The situation finally stabilized when the US Federal Reserve raised interest rates to 18%, halting further declines in the dollar and triggering a 20-year bear market in gold."

"Without the fiscal restraints inherent in a gold-backed currency, politicians worldwide were able to promise social programs and expand government bureaucracies that could be delivered through borrowing money created by the central banks rather than through direct taxation. They could embark on military campaigns with borrowed dollars that future generations would have to repay. And borrow they did, particularly in the US. In 1971 the total US federal debt stood at $436 billion. Today, that number exceeds $8 trillion. The 2005 increase in the federal debt of $571 billion was more than the total debt in 1971. Worse still, when calculated in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and taking unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations into account, the total federal debt is actually $49.4 trillion. This equates to more than $160,000 for every American"

Yep...thanks Richard Nixon!

What a great President you were...

A) Source?

B) Sounds like an editorial, an opinion of a leftist writer rather than fact.

C) Watergate is really that terrible? Name a president that didn't abuse his power or was a crook in some sense. You simply can't. Was Nixon a crook? Probably, but so are most leaders of the world. Was NIxon stupid for doing it? Yes, I"m not saying it wasnt a bad move, but his entire presidency is rated because of that one event. Move on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, hermit listed all the things he suports with obama, which i would say all but a few, not more than 40% of america supports.

Hell, i could put up the same list, and say these are all the things people who support McCain wants. But hermit pawns it off as saying everbody in america wants these things.

Im not sure more than 40% wants the bush cuts banned

Im not sure more than 40% complety support the roe vs. wade

Im not sure if 40% of america want universail helath care once they know how much it will cost

Im not sure if 40% of america want the ban on assualt rifles

Im not sure if moe than 40% condone tortue on the bassis how its carried out

Im not sure if more than 40% oppoose what bush has done with wire taps.

If Obama wants to win the far left vote, Im pretty sure he'll beat McCain in a landslide.Im all for it.

Do i think Univerasal helth care is a great idea. Yes, will it not work and cost me more money. Yuu betcha.

Im also not a crimnal and have no plans of bieng one. So beat who you must, listen to any phone call, and allow good citzens to buy thier guns.

America is not that far left. The most left leaning state has a repub gov. and most likley will vote in the majority to ban gay marriages and obama lost that primary.

So yes hermit, i would admit Obama is more left winger than McCain.

Edited by Pb Derigable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said it, but how many of the 17million are die hard Hilrod fans. Maybe a quarter, (which is also the number that says they won't vote obama) but the other 75% thought she been there longer and know what the fuck she is doing. Ready on day one. but they are not going to take a chance with another bush term with McCain, so they will vote Obama. I don't think it's fair to say McCain is bush thrid term, but im also not a liberal.

ill agree that mccain is one of the more progressive GOP (more so in 2000, with "the straight talk express" then now in 2008)... and ill admit im more liberal then conservative (but dont call me a dem)...

however, the 3rd term bush is an obvious attack, as most dems hate bush with a passion and will rally against anyone who supports him... and, IMO... mccain moved more with bush during bush's 2nd term then during his 1st...

so the "3rd term" is an attack with some solid points... but not as solid as the dems would like to think it is

Edited by zosodude13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, hermit listed all the things he suports with obama, which i would say all but a few, not more than 40% of america supports.

Hell, i could put up the same list, and say these are all the things people who support McCain wants. But hermit pawns it off as saying everbody in america wants these things.

Your inability to properly process and comprehend basic information is mind-boggling, Pipeboy. slapface.gif

I never said, nor even inferred, that "everybody in America wants these things"; I said those issues would be enough to solidly unite the democratic party (including angry Hillary supporters) against McSame. And I suggested that Obama's position on many of those issues will likely appeal to a good number of independents and disaffected moderate republicans as well.

Is that spelled out clearly enough for you? :rolleyes:

Make no mistake about it, Pb, I fully realize that Bush-supporting republicans (like you), democrat-hating republicans (like you), African American-fearing republicans (like you), war mongering republicans (like you), civil liberties-sacrificing republicans (like you), and republicans who wish Bush could stay in office for a 3rd term (like you) will never vote for Obama no matter what. That's perfectly ok with me, bud; you go right ahead and vote for McSame. More power to ya, muh-man. But democrats and a good number of independents (and disaffected moderate republicans) are going to vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers and he will be the next POTUS. :thumbsup:

Get it? B)

:beer:

Obama '08!!

:hippy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...