Jump to content

If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. If you could vote in the upcoming US elections, who would you vote for?

    • John McCain
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Barrack Obama
    • Some left-wing candidate with no chance of winning
    • Some right-wing candidate with no chance of winning

Recommended Posts

Because removing a collection of cells is far worse than sending grown adults to kill and be killed...

But that's not the subject at hand. Funny how news stories, rather than changing opinion, tend to enhance the feeling one already has. Whatever Obama's 'true colours' may be, it's a mite early to be blaming him for the actions of those with whom he shares a political origin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is mostly in reply to Dante--

Sure, it's too early to blame him for everything going wrong, but that was never a problem when the person we were blaming was George W. Bush? I agree with you, it's funny to see how most example people bring up in argument tend to enhance, rather than weaken, their opponents' views. I find it equally funny that those who, for the last eight years, extolled the virtues of suspicion, investigative journalism and "patriotic dissent," are now the very same people attempting to quash and silence all forms of that dissent when it is direcated at Their Man. Regardless of Barack Obama's level of involvement, I do have a problem with the fact that everyone in his state seems to be a corrupt lunatic--it isn't any stretch of the imagination to say that he was involved at some level, in some instance, at some point in his career, and hell, we lambasted Sarah Palin for the far more bengin fiasco that was "Troopergate," but she was even found not guilty! Mr. Obama, himself, has never been subjected to any similar investigation. I have a problem that Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko (who sold Obama his house, for Chrissake!), Harris, and so on and so forth, are all connected to Barack Obama. One would be a coincidence, more than that is a legitimate, and rational cause for suspicion. Suspicion, which, I shall remind you, you, and people who share you view, spent the last eight years arguing that we are all entitled to.

I'm not going to go out and demand that the man be impeached--that would be ridiculous. Right now, I'm hoping that Barack helps the Senate Democrats stick to their guns and refuses to seat anyone named by Blagojevich--who is a cynical, foolish and destructive individual for naming Burris, for the obvious reasons. However, to Dante and to all people who are Democrats, or supporters of Barack Obama who were also opponents of George W. Bush, I shall say that, if you want to retain any of the legitimacy you may feel you have resulting from the apparent "victory" of "your view" in this election, I would caution you to hold yourself to the same standards you held those of the "other view" for the last eight years. Hold Barack Obama to the same, rigorous standard you held George W. Bush. Hold the Democrats to the same, rigorous standard you held the Republican Party--mud on your boots may be better than blood on your hands, but if I'm not mistaken, 90%+ of the Democratic Party voted for the war?--and try not to rewrite history. Anything less would be inconsistent, and hypocritical, and there is nothing I hate more than hypocrisy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, when Obama starts selling offices, committing election fraud and invading other countries, then we can all rally round and beat the political credit out of him. Until then, it's just too early to make a judgement. The man's not even been sworn in yet. Let him have time to make miracles and mistakes, then we can start hurling tomatoes.

Also, comparing Obama to Hitler (Obama = abortions = murder = genocide = Hitler) is just... bizarre. And probably disrespectful to the victims of the Holocaust.

Especially that feeling that half the population are idiots. ;)

49-51%, depending on how you interpret a Florida ballot. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. So many posts have been made while making this one:D (not that I am complaining, quite the contrary all things considered). Anyway, I am fortuitous that Nema Fakei mentioned that about pro-abortion. Of course when using the term I mean pro-allowing abortion/pro-choice, but that is not what I had in my post and Nema has therefore spared me significant irritation. Thank you, Nema.


''In fact, some comrades have already started bashing Obama''

Haha, I have actually already read all those articles ;D. That site has become something of a favorite past time of mine (along with generally reading up on whatever piques my curiosity at any given moment).

This site (http://www.marxist.com/) is perhaps even more interesting than that of the UCPA. You have probably already at least perused that site though.

Well, would it be reasonable to rate Obama a little on his selection of the pastor for his inaugural ceremony? Well, technically, I don't know if HE actually made the decision directly all by his lonesome; I have simply heard that it was ''announced'' his joint committee. It would seem fair to guess that he would have a great share (if not all) of the say in the matter.

Of course, he didn't necessarily choose Rick Warrens (A rich proponent of proposition 8 who is said to have played a significant role in it's passing) for his stance on gay marriage.

However, one would imagine that a more suitable candidate similar to Rick - the anti gay marriage stance (well, he is probably anti-homosexual in general and being described as a conservative right wing evangelist one would imagine he is also anti stem-cell research, anti abortion and holds other such foolish stances as would be typical) could have been chosen.

Then again, maybe there aren't exactly that many people to choose from the group of rich conservative religious figures.

Then again ''rich'' hardly seems necessary and why would ''conservative'' be a plus?

On the matter of anti-gay marriage, it is said that proposition 8 would not have been passed were it not for the situation of uneven campaigning; purportedly, the gay marriage campaigners were sitting on their laurels a tad. If proposition 8 would not have passed in the case of the even campaigning, this would suggest that in fact the populace is (under normal conditions) in favor of gay marriage and probably against homosexual discrimination (or whatever you wish to call it) in general.

On the matter of conservatism, it is thought by many that Obama's vague shouting of ''change'' played a large part in his victory. It would seem odd then that a population supporting ''change'' (whatever meaning that has) would favor relative conservatism.

In other words, provided that Obama has no interest in being honest for the sake of honesty, trying to make his image more conservative and anti-gay seems generally unwise. This would also clash with the image effect from his pro-choice stance, though of course it is fully possible for a conservative or liberal to support liberal or conservative (respectively) polices in spite of that element of the policy (depending perhaps on their other stances). It is also possible for a conservative or liberal to want to appear as the opposite.

We can also rate Obama on his selections for appointment to various positions. As can be seen in the article ''Obama

Link to post
Share on other sites


Just how many bailouts will it take Obama to melt the wicked witch of recession?  What a legacy to inherit!

Guess which illustrious industry is lining up next for a government bailout.  In the name of all that is good and decent, please tell me that  this is a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Ahh, something that we agree upon. I also think that anyone asking for a big fat government hand out should meet with the same fate.  It's all about accountability and responsibilty people.

Khan - good to know you're getting it for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Accountability for the idiots who got rich by personally taking money that they didn't deserve. Quite a lot of people are in this mess because they were tied to those idiots. This second group of people deserve help. You've seen me argue that quite a lot recently, and suddenly this picture turns up, and you think I've reversed my position? Try not to take things at face value, mmkay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo you were replying to a semi-sarcastic image with sarcasm? And that whole thing about responsibility, wasn't that what you've been saying all along?

Three very good reasons why the american auto industry shouldn't be bailed out:


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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

  • Create New...