Off Topic A place for you car junkies to boldly post off topic. Almost anything goes.
View Poll Results: Obama or McCain?
Obama/Biden
58
56.86%
McCain/Palin
44
43.14%
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll

*------Election 2008------*

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #221  
Old 10-26-2008, 11:41 PM
auditech79's Avatar
Site Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 9,004
Default

Originally Posted by blackmagics4
Dang, I never knew I would be racist based on who I thought would do a better job as the president. I guess I should sell my Audi because its from Germany.

...hahaaa that was the dumbest comment ever in history.... EVER.

(I will be voting McCain) - I don't believe in a democrasy.
Not to mention if a black person votes for Obama just because he's black thats also racist, or reverse racism if you will. Im just not a fan of socialism and thats what Obama is, so my vote goes to McCain.
 
  #222  
Old 10-27-2008, 01:14 AM
Palindari™'s Avatar
4th Gear
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Constant State of Confusion
Posts: 5,942
Default

Originally Posted by Manic Moran

Firstly, yes, I think experience counts. McCain has it in droves, and I'll argue more than even Biden in practical terms.
Actually you have a point - to a point.

where does it say that a President makes all the decisions? Every President has a cabinet and advisors - I'm curious to see who Obama surrounds himself with - that will be the "experience" you need.

In my first years in the Army there were scores of sergeants around that simply got promoted and got there due to "experience". That was BS they just waited around long enough to get promoted, but they were still rocks with lips.

Not to say McCain is one of those - far from it. But I get the sense that niether is Obama...

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
Secondly, foreign policy. This not the 1930s where the US can chart its own course alone. Interactions with other countries must be handled both to one's friends and partners, and with authority to others. The contrast between McCain's response and Obama's response over the Georgia gig is illuminating. McCain came out with a position straight away. Obama vaccilated for two days before, after three statements, basically coming to the same position as McCain had taken.
lol... McCain is notorious for making enemies at times in the wrong places. And unless you want a draft - there is no way in bloody hell America could go up against Russia in defense of Georgia - atm. Our military is spread so thin right now... it's scary. At least during Vietnam we had a draft to keep our numbers strong - not now...

Sometimes other countires conflicts are not ours... talk about your socialist agenda. We are not the world police - the UN is the closest thing to that and it took a year to convince them to start the farce in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
Third, Iraq. It's not a matter of 'winning' and 'losing', and it's certainly got nothing to do if we should have gone in in the first place, it's now a matter of what sort of place we're leaving behind. A departure on our own schedule is about as caring towards the locals as our decision to invade the place. I won't say I made many Iraqi friends, but I got to know enough of them well enough that I think it would be immoral to just up and leave them to whatever comes. Certainly Petraeus was not exactly brimming with confidence after his meeting with Obama a couple of months ago in Iraq, and Obama's stated intents have been causing us no end of trouble in Iraq over the last year. You know how hard it is to get an Iraqi to trust you when he's watching CNN and the news is telling him that he could be making deals with soldiers who will be gone in a year? Yeah, that's worth him taking a risk for.
Agreed. It's not smart to broadcast your intentions publically - any military strategist will confirm that. We never should have invaded Iraq. But now that we have we can't leave it in worse shape than we found it.

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
Economy, I'm not so worried about. Firstly, because in the long term it'll sort itself out anyway. These busts and booms always do. Secondly, the chances are that most of the advice is going to come from professionals in the economics industry, together with legislation passed by the Congress, which is going to be Democratic anyway.
Which brings up a fouth issue. In traumatic times, you want to basically keep station, not suddenly turn on a massive and different tack. We have a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and we want a Democratic President as well? Many argue that having a Republican Triumvirate wasn't exactly the best thing for the country, and suddenly Democrats having free reign is so much better? No thanks.
Well if history is any gauge - Hoover - a Republican - got us into the Great Depression. It took Roosevelt - a Democrat - to lead us out of it.

Funny thing - Roosevelt was so popular he got elected to an unprecendented third term of office - he died during that term. But due to that popularlty - it was the Republicans that passed a 2 term limitation on the office.

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
Addressing a couple of issues mentioned earlier, I'm surprised to see gun control as hotly contested. Heller's been decided. Individual Right. President can't change that. People have been worried about an overturn of Roe v Wade for years, yet with a pro-life president in charge, combined with Republican House and Senate it still wasn't overturned. So even with Obama in charge, I don't see our firearms rights being eroded. They certainly can't ban them, and I strongly doubt they'd be stupid enough to pass another 1994 ban, consdering what happened to them last time. Besides, there are a lot of Democrats on the Hill from the Western and Southern States who very much like their guns, thank you very much, they're not all Schumers, Feinsteins and McCarthys (The shoulder thing that goes up!).
As I've mentioned before - it will take a great deal to abolish any Constitutional right. So we're safe there.

Rather curious as to why such extreme accusations get thrown every which way. Odd how when Bush became President, they liberals cried and whined - but that was the it of it - well until the end we now are in an unending war on two fronts and an econmy stumbled but not out.

Yet all I hear is how we're all going to die from the extreme right if Obama takes office... why such a ***** approach?

Truly if McCain had come forth and led this would be a whole different race. But it seems like it's all shock and awe tactics that seem over the top and under the gun. He could have won in my opinion if he had done what he did back in 2000.
 

Last edited by Palindari™; 10-27-2008 at 01:19 AM.
  #223  
Old 10-27-2008, 01:48 AM
Manic Moran's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 111
Default

Originally Posted by Palindari™
lol... McCain is notorious for making enemies at times in the wrong places. And unless you want a draft - there is no way in bloody hell America could go up against Russia in defense of Georgia - atm. Our military is spread so thin right now... it's scary. At least during Vietnam we had a draft to keep our numbers strong - not now...
Perhaps, but you still can't argue against the fact that Obama eventually chose the same "Russia should stop its attacks" line which McCain had taken the day before. If the line is wrong, they're both wrong. If the line is right, then McCain was on the ball. And there's always that Surge thing...

Sometimes other countires conflicts are not ours... talk about your socialist agenda. We are not the world police - the UN is the closest thing to that and it took a year to convince them to start the farce in Iraq.
It's an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, you are correct that we aren't the world police, and if it doesn't benefit us specifically, we shouldn't do anything. Then again, what happens if something comes up which on a humanitarian basis really we should do something? Relying on the multi-national bodies is fine in theory, but they take for ever to ever come to a conclusion about anything. For the three days, or whatever it took to decide to do something about Kosovo, that was three days' worth of people who died.

Yet all I hear is how we're all going to die from the extreme right if Obama takes office... why such a ***** approach?
Actually, I'm hearing more the opposite from the Obama-supporting camp. I personally don't think an Obama presidency is going to be the end of the world. Not my first choice, but we'll get by. Yet the amount of people I come across who think that McCain is the devil incarnate and the country will go down in nuclear fire and brimstone if he wins is amazing.

Truly if McCain had come forth and led this would be a whole different race. But it seems like it's all shock and awe tactics that seem over the top and under the gun. He could have won in my opinion if he had done what he did back in 2000.
Agreed.

NTM
 
  #224  
Old 10-27-2008, 12:24 PM
Palindari™'s Avatar
4th Gear
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Constant State of Confusion
Posts: 5,942
Default

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
Perhaps, but you still can't argue against the fact that Obama eventually chose the same "Russia should stop its attacks" line which McCain had taken the day before. If the line is wrong, they're both wrong. If the line is right, then McCain was on the ball. And there's always that Surge thing...
Well, as for what Obama said, that's what almost all the heads of state did. Publically admonish Russia for it's act of aggression.

McCain made it sound like if they didn't pull back we would be bumping wienies over it.

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
It's an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, you are correct that we aren't the world police, and if it doesn't benefit us specifically, we shouldn't do anything. Then again, what happens if something comes up which on a humanitarian basis really we should do something? Relying on the multi-national bodies is fine in theory, but they take for ever to ever come to a conclusion about anything. For the three days, or whatever it took to decide to do something about Kosovo, that was three days' worth of people who died.
In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to help and protect everyone and at the risk of sounding heartless - it's not our fight. Kosovo was a mess - but why didn't we step into Rwanda where hundreds of thousands more were slaughtered?

Our nation couldn't even come to the aid of New Orleans when it was flooded and finally did so on almost a too little too late basis.

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
Actually, I'm hearing more the opposite from the Obama-supporting camp. I personally don't think an Obama presidency is going to be the end of the world. Not my first choice, but we'll get by. Yet the amount of people I come across who think that McCain is the devil incarnate and the country will go down in nuclear fire and brimstone if he wins is amazing.
lol... I guess, being in one of the most ultra conservative enclaves of California I hear quite the opposite - that and Prop 8 (banning gay marriage.. lol). Not enough liberals to hear whimpering around here.

Originally Posted by Manic Moran
Agreed.
lol... don't let Bogie and Ghetto know

Hey, couldn't help noticing your sig - you a 19D? (Army MOS for Cav Scout - for those wondering - unless that's changed I've been out for awhile now )
 
  #225  
Old 10-27-2008, 12:27 PM
onepoint8tee's Avatar
Site Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,664
Default

Everything is going to be ok when Sarah Palin gets control of the Senate. You guys don't even know!
 
  #226  
Old 10-27-2008, 02:15 PM
matthai5's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 48
Default

what makes Obama more qualified than Palin. When looking at his voting record it is alarming at the number times he has not voted on issues.
 
  #227  
Old 10-27-2008, 02:30 PM
airguard350's Avatar
Tech Guru
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lunatic Fringe
Posts: 5,540
Default

Obama was a community organizer before he was in the senate. Community organizer sounds important..... even though lifeguards at the community pool are community organizers......
 
  #228  
Old 10-27-2008, 03:32 PM
Palindari™'s Avatar
4th Gear
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Constant State of Confusion
Posts: 5,942
Default

this I don't understand....

Explain to me how Sarah Palin goes from being a mayor of a town of less than 10k for 6 yrs - chairs a board for 1 - then becomes governor for 2+...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Yet Obama goes from "community organizer" to US Senator?
He did serve in the Illinois state senate as well for 6+ yrs before going to the US Senate. Wonder why everyone glosses over that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

If you look at their numbers I would say Obama has a slight lead on the experience front over Palin.

As for not voting. Every Senator has a record of not voting - some greater than others.

Here's McCain's recent record according to the Washington Post
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...mbers/m000303/
 

Last edited by Palindari™; 10-27-2008 at 04:04 PM.
  #229  
Old 10-27-2008, 03:38 PM
bgrist's Avatar
1st Gear
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nova
Posts: 145
Default

sarah palin was a local sports anchor.....

yeah sports anchor (i.e. read off teleprompter)
 

Last edited by bgrist; 10-27-2008 at 03:48 PM.
  #230  
Old 10-27-2008, 04:44 PM
onepoint8tee's Avatar
Site Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,664
Default

With less than 2 weeks to go until election day, she was under the impression that the VP is in charge of the senate. She's a decent motivational speaker, but not a lot more than that. Now that she is going through a rebelious period after being programed and protected from the media for so long, she is going to just look like a desperate motivational speaker. This state governor obviously has a greater handicap on domestic and foreign affairs when compared to basically any other potential vp pick. It was all about the hillary vote. McCain chose poorly.
 


Quick Reply: *------Election 2008------*



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 PM.