Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?

TULedHead

By TULedHead
in Ramble On

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

Medhb

Medhb

Posted
Posted
Everyone knows that I am not an Obama supporter. Even I thought that he would look out for his own family. He seems to care more for Rev. Wright then his own half brother living in shambles. This is sad.

Sheesh! The guy is some person that the father that left him when he was a youngster fathered after he left his mom!! I dont' consider those close family ties....just shows how much better off Obama was without his real father in his life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Medhb

Medhb

Posted
Posted
There are some people here who were banned for reasons to protect children from predators... a very good reason -- I'm sure everyone would agree. And yet there are others who have been banned, sometimes by their own stubborness with the mods, but for a completly less sinister reasons than contacting children. I believe we all need to recognize the difference and acknowledge that there can be no comparison. If I got a speeding ticket for driving my wife to the hospital, and another guy got one for drag racing through a 'school zone'.... obviously one is a mitigating and the other a aggravating circumstance.

Hermit has plenty of good things to contribute whether or not people agree with him, or like him. I don't agree with him on most things. But without some people to present different views, how is this forum better? I believe "my message" is given balance when there are people like Hermit to offer opposition to my point of view. Without an advisarial debate, how are we ever certain that points of truth or logic are not being glossed over? A healthy debate is an advisarial debate, and we need Hermit's input on these issues, especially since he takes the time reasearch his points of view.

...My two cents less whatever was taken out for taxes by liberals to pay for whatever feel good scheme is on their agenda this month. ;)

Hear, hear!! I miss the debates...they were better than if Obama and McCain were actually to get together, LOL! Really, I wish you two were the canidates :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pb Derigable

Pb Derigable

Posted
Posted
I think I understand what you mean, Pb Derigable. Not all racists are evil people. Sure, racists tend to be misguided, angry, intolerant and hateful with regard to people's ethnicity, but it's possible that they might otherwise be good people. I can understand why your feelings would be hurt if you were completely laughed at over that.

Does racism have anything to with your personal dislike of Obama? You might not like Obama because he's black, but that wouldn't necessarily mean you're not a good person. Anyway, what does any of that have to do with your animosity toward Hermit? Why are you glad that he got banned? Was he one of the people who laughed at you? Was he a forum "troll"?

Is he a black? :huh::unsure: ... :D

You say Hermit broke the rules. What specific rules did he break? Do you know? Other people seem to think he didn't deserve to be banned. I'd like to know the truth. If he broke a rule, that rule violation should be able to be clearly pointed out, if for no other reason than to serve as a clear example to others. In other forums I've been a member of when someone gets banned the reason is either totally obvious to everyone or the reason is explained to anyone who wants to know. It seems to me there's no reason for bannings to be a matter of mystery and secrecy. Do you think the "law" of the forum should be arbitrary and subject to the whims of the mods? Kinda like Guantanamo Bay, right? No habeus corpus rights for the accused. :P:lol:

(Btw, I'd be willing to bet the mods you consider to be Gods aren't the ones paying for the bandwidth at this, the "official", Led-Zeppelin website. ;) )

If you found out the mods were Obama supporters or are black or gay, would you still look upon them as Gods? :blink::D

I just wanna know why the guy got booted, that's all. I figure..

TheTruthIsOutThere.jpg

..somewhere.

Did someone spill koolaid over the forum. I thought we kicked that guy out.

Still i repeat, the consitiution stops at your home page. After that you are at the mercy of all. Obama wants open internet and bitching how someone does you wrong is completly against that wish. If you want the mods to change, vote for McCain.

How many times have you been banned? I still like you even though I disagree with you most of the time. I, personally, never saw any posts from Hermit that were inflammitory

Once.

Misunderstanding.

I apoligized to both parties.

I was trying to be funny.

I wrote the mods saying excatly that.

I already had a second persona ready just in case.

I was trying to own up to my mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TypeO

TypeO

Posted
Posted
Is he a black?

Is he A BLACK???

You're making insinuations of racism and in the same post using a phrase like that?

I can only hope you're joking.

If you found out the mods were Obama supporters or are black or gay, would you still look upon them as Gods? :blink::D

Does anyone at all understand PB's remark???

Do you really believe he feels that serious about the mods of a forum?

Do you not understand the phrase?

Take a vacation from "Literal World" for a moment and get a grip.

zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Bill

Uncle Bill

Posted
Posted

I don't know if you guys see as many political ads as we in the battleground states do, but it's almost nonstop here. Almost all negative. Almost none are truthful. :angry:

It's hard to believe, but it seems the democrats are intent on pissing away what should be a shoo-in election. I think nobama is getting bad advice from his handlers. IMO he should have done as he said he would and not gone negative in his campaign. It would have been a lot harder for the republicans to keep up their usual barrage of shit slinging if he has remained above it. That may have worked.

It's already starting to backfire on them. Yesterday they tried to make a big deal out of mccain not knowing instantly how many property's his family owns and came out with a commercial bashing him for it. It seemed like within 10 min the mccain people had a hard hitting one bashing nobama for his connections to the scumbag convicted felon Tony Rezko and his role in nobama buying his mansion, which even nobama himself said was "boneheaded"mistake. It also gave them the opportunity to bring up the 14 million dollars of tax money Rezko got thanks to nobama. I bet the GOP will be happy to make that comparison, and are praying the dems keep it alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marolyn

marolyn

Posted
Posted
I don't know if you guys see as many political ads as we in the battleground states do, but it's almost nonstop here. Almost all negative. Almost none are truthful. :angry:

i will gladly trade you all my afn public service announcements for all of your political ads...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Bill

Uncle Bill

Posted
Posted

Funny you *yawn* about the current mess that nobama has w/ Wright, Ayers, Rezko. And bring up the ancient history of the keating 5, which was a democratic scandal that McCain got caught up in for political reasons. And which he was cleared of all charges due to his "minimal involvment"

You are going to have to better than that, how about something from this century? Nice try but no cigar :whistling:

from your link:

Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[16] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[19]

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[17][16] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[20] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]

Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[21][22][23][9] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[21][23] Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."[22] The Vice Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, agreed with Bennett, but the Chairman, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, did not agree.[9]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pb Derigable

Pb Derigable

Posted
Posted
Does it matter?

Or rather,.. what does it matter to you? :rolleyes:

So Obama's past is relevant and open to scrutiny but McCain's isn't?

How "convenient" for you and your candidate of choice, Uncle Bill. :rolleyes:

You can do better than that, can't you? Nice try but no cigar, friend. ;)

Fwiw,.. my point previously was that neither The Keating Five nor Tony Rezko are particularly relevant issues in this election, but the raising of the Rezko issue by the McCain campaign opens the door for McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal to be raised by the Obama campaign. Personally I think McCain stands to lose more by The Keating Five being brought up than Obama stands to lose from Tony Rezko being brought up. Why do I think that? 1. because the Rezko issue was brought up in the primaries and it didn't hamper the Obama campaign at all, but McCain has yet to have to answer any Keating Five related questions in his run for the presidency, and 2. because McCain was actually implicated and investigated for wrong doing with regard to The Keating Five, whereas Obama was never even accused, let alone investigated, of any wrongdoing with regard to Tony Rezko.

Rezko - convicted felon, former associate of Obama's.

Obama - never formally accused of any wrongdoing with regard to Rezko.

Keating - convicted felon, former associate of McCain's.

McCain - one of "The Keating Five"; formally accused of improper/illegal activity with regard to his actions involving Charles Keating; investigated in the Senate; eventually cleared of wrongdoing; criticized by his Senate peers for poor judgment.

Seeing as though the McCain campaign has been questioning Obama's "judgment",

maybe The Keating Five scandal issue is relevant in this campaign afterall,.. eh? :whistling:

;)

Whats with all the fucking koolaid

Like this one

Rezko - convicted felon, former associate of Obama's.

Obama - never formally accused of any wrongdoing with regard to Rezko.

Keating - convicted felon, former associate of McCain's.

McCain - one of "The Keating Five"; formally accused of improper/illegal activity with regard to his actions involving Charles Keating; investigated in the Senate; eventually cleared of wrongdoing; criticized by his Senate peers for poor judgment.

See the fucking koolaid spilled all over this it should read just like this if he was making a fair point.

Rezko - convicted felon, former associate of Obama's.

Obama - never formally accused of any wrongdoing with regard to Rezko."I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times

Keating - convicted felon, former associate of McCain's.

McCain - one of "The Keating Five"; formally accused of improper/illegal activity with regard to his actions involving Charles Keating; investigated in the Senate; eventually cleared of wrongdoing; criticized by his Senate peers for poor judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Bill

Uncle Bill

Posted
Posted

Time will tell my friend.

You are incorrect again, as usual, this time about me being a McCain supporter. I've never liked the guy and don't intend voting for him. In fact, I got a call from the rnc last night and told them so.

I highly doubt that the democrats will too anxious to bring up a democrat scandal that JM got caught up in for political reasons. Particularly since he was exonerated, and only mildly criticized for dealing with the democrats involved in the first place. Personally I hope they do.

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."

-- Jim Horning

It was long ago, what was nobama doing then? Still hanging out at the madrazza? ;)

"Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."

Cranston: severely reprimanded

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Cranston had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[16] He had received more than a million dollars from Keating, had done more arm-twisting than the other Senators on Keating's behalf, and was the only Senator officially rebuked by the Senate in this matter.[17]

Riegle and DeConcini: criticized for acting improperly

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Riegle and DeConcini had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[16]

Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[16] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[19]

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[17][16] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

LEDZEPPELIN.com

Site Navigation

  • LedZeppelin.com Home
  • News
  • Discography
  • Merchandise
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

    • Led Zeppelin Timeline

  • Concert Timeline / Database
  • Events
  • Photos
  • Video
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...