|
Post by jane on Apr 21, 2008 12:19:45 GMT -5
no one-word posts
|
|
|
Post by Lon-Dubh on Apr 22, 2008 19:42:14 GMT -5
In part, at least, I feel that the whole statement "Barack Obama's too young to hold presidency" is getting pretty weak. You want to know the facts? Clinton's campaign is running out of other alternatives, so they throw something like that statement into the fray.
Yes, Obama may be young. But becuase he is newer, there has been less time for Big Business, lobbyists, and other such people to sink their claws into him. Does anyone honestly believe that through all of her years in polotics and in the Whitehouse, Clinton never made some behind-the-scenes deals with some useful companies? No. Also, Bill Clinton has his time in presidency-- look how well that turned out. I don't want him influencing our nation again from behind the throne.
Youth doesn't mean someone is stupid. I believe that some of our greatest leaders and presidents have been younger. John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. ect. Experience doesn't mean someone is necessarily better suited to a position. In fact, having a person that hasn't lived and breathed polotics and intrigue for the last thirty years will probably have the better solutions-- becuase he or she is able to look at the situation objectively.
Bascially-- if Hillary Clinton's only argument against Obama is "he's too young," she's really struggling to find something objectionable.
Also: McCain is as far to the right side of the spectrum you can get without bending over backwards. With him in presidency; you can more or less be 100% assured we will be in Iraq for 4 to 8 more years.
|
|
|
Post by ForgottenRose_13 on Apr 22, 2008 21:22:25 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but if you really look at what McCain believes you will see that he holds some very liberal beliefs. I don't like Obama because he refuses to tell anyone what he believes. How can you vote for a president when you don't know his policies? Also note that all the candidates are talking about "making plans for taking troops out of Iraq" instead of actually taking them out. None of the candidates have real plans for that. They are just trying to pacify the populace.
I think that all of the candidates are too liberal. At this point, I'm seriously considering the Cookie Monster, rehab and all.
|
|
|
Post by jane on Apr 23, 2008 7:39:47 GMT -5
I suppose that Lonn-Dubh has a point, although I do still support McCain, partly so we can have an "opposite" Congress.
|
|
|
Post by sam on Apr 23, 2008 10:08:37 GMT -5
I think Obama is fine its just that he isnt explaining HOW he will fix the problems he says are problems. He just leaves you hanging wondering what he'll do because he doesnt actually say it....I agree with Blackrose13. except i want Hilary to win..
|
|
|
Post by jane on Apr 25, 2008 16:41:29 GMT -5
Very true... that's a good argument against Obama, although Hilary is my last choice.
|
|
|
Post by sam on Apr 26, 2008 19:20:18 GMT -5
Thank you. ...for the part about Obama.
|
|
|
Post by jane on Apr 26, 2008 21:53:09 GMT -5
yeah, XD, I guess... so... anyone else have an argument against Hilary? Or McCain? Or Obama?
|
|
|
Post by Lon-Dubh on Apr 30, 2008 19:00:28 GMT -5
Let's discuss Hillary Clinton. The following 9 items, all accompanied by examples, are just a few of the things I was able to pick up about Hillary Clinton within only 15 minutes.
1. Whitewater Scandal If you don’t know, Google it. It requires a kind of lengthy explanation.
2. Questionable Investments: Two months after commencing the Whitewater scam, Hillary Clinton invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.
3. Receiving Retainer Checks from companies Madison Guarantee S&L
4. Concealment from Investigation: From a 1996 Chicago Tribune editorial: "The legal issues will sort themselves out in time. But one thing has become all too clear. Bill and Hillary Clinton and their aides have made a concerted effort to deceive official investigators and the American public with half truths and outright lies . . . It's not clear what the Clintons want to conceal, but it's clear that they have made extraordinary efforts to do so."
5. Stupidity: The American Spectator reports in 1996 that on her Asian tour, Hillary Clinton told New Zealand television that she had been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Sir Edmund, however, was an unknown beekeeper the year of Mrs. Clinton's birth.
6. Outright LIES: Number of times Hillary Clinton says "I don't recall" or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50. Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42
7. Issues with Mismanagement: Hillary Clinton and David Watkins move to oust the White House travel office in favor of World Wide Travel, Clinton's source of $1 million in fly-now- pay-later campaign trips. The White House fires seven long-term employees for alleged mismanagement and kickbacks. The director, Billy Dale, charged with embezzlement in the HRC-organized frame-up, will be acquitted in less than two hours by the jury.
8. If you’re going to lie, at least make it good……… Billing records documenting HRC's work on the Castle Grande development scam are discovered in the family quarters of the White House. HRC says she has no idea how they got there.
9. Some Current lawsuits/cases against Mrs. Clinton: Judicial Watch sues Hillary Clinton in a $90 million lawsuit on behalf of the 900 persons whose FBI files were taken by the White House. She is also a defendant in a shareholder suit filed against Loral and others over the sale of slots on public trade missions. The FBI files case is expected to reach trial next year.
You know, I especially enjoyed item #6. You should take another look at it. More or less, Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, ambitous politician who has no moral qualms about breaking the law concerning financing, fair management of individuals, real estate, or tampering with federal investigations. Clinton can't run her own campaign without going into debt; and she isn't choosy about WHERE she gets her money. Meaning she doesn't really care whether cash is coming from legal or illegal sources; so long as it's coming.
She's displayed an absolute lack of ethics dealing with financing and official investigation.
She's shown a disturbing tendency to flat out lie; whether its just to an individual or a House Investigation Committee.
She has done nothing to significantly indicate she will not continue her trends of lawlessness with no morals the future.
Do you REALLY want someone like this running our country?
|
|
|
Post by soleilmari on May 1, 2008 17:47:47 GMT -5
And that is why I'm with Obama all the way...
|
|
|
Post by ForgottenRose_13 on May 1, 2008 20:26:32 GMT -5
I agree. Hillary is corrupt, but so is Obama. One word: Rezko.
|
|
|
Post by soleilmari on May 2, 2008 20:10:18 GMT -5
what is "Rezko"
|
|
|
Post by volvolover on May 7, 2008 0:06:23 GMT -5
I really agree with Lon-Dubh and no I don't want her to be running an already in debt country. However I do see your point jane about Obama being inexperenced. Although seleilmari I have to agree with you Obama all the way!
|
|
|
Post by londonmarie on May 7, 2008 1:40:01 GMT -5
Lon-Dubh: That may be true. But do you want someone for president who refuse to look at the flag or stand show respect to the flag?hmmm Obama looked away at a cermony where they played the national anthem and were raising the flag. He also didn't stand with his arms crossed behind his back (like people are suppose to if they don't support the flag). I don't care if you don't approve of the war, respect must be shown to those who died for the freedom of this country. I don't support the war. I think it was a horrible and idiotic thing to do, and I don't support the president's decision to go to war. But I STILL show respect to that flag, because if it weren't for people in WWII...if Hitler had won I wouldn't be here. Even the Queen of England shows respect to our flag. If the freaking QUEEN of England is willing to show respect to this countries flag, a presidental canidate MUST and SHOULD show respect. Do you really want someone like THAT running this country?
|
|
|
Post by Lon-Dubh on May 7, 2008 18:52:14 GMT -5
Is anyone's only arguments against Obama honestly as shallow as him "not showing enough respect for the flag?"
#1. There could have been more to the situation than some people try to portray.
#2. I would rather have a president that isn't showing the proper reverence for the flag than a president that has lied under oath, bypassed laws, obviously has no moral qualms with abiding by the laws, and has just been flat out dishonest.
Who would you rather have as a president; someone who "didn't cross their arms properly," or someone who currently has 2 lawsuits against them and has a history of disobeying laws?
Even here, everyone's issues with Obama is something like, "he doesn't have enough experience." If you look at above posts, you'll note I already explained how that can be a positive thing, owing to the fact that some of our greatest leaders have been younger, and not being involved in politics as long allows for less time for that politician to be bought by lobbyests.
And if anyone honestly has no better arguments against Obama than that he didn't fold his arms properly, that's just evidence in an of itself. The simple fact is that, looking at the track record, Hillary has a whole lot more black marks than Obama.
If anyone has any arguments against Obama besides that he wasn't observing the correct posture at a ceremony, I'd love to hear them.
|
|