Obama supporters?

[jillio]

Exactly.

And as for guns? I don't think banning them will help, just like I don't think banning abortion or stem-cell research will help.

Prohibition of anything doesn't work.

 

[BradB08]

Prohibition of anything doesn't work.

Indeed.

I also find it funny how people blame taxes on alcohol and strict controls on the consumption of it on liberals. That is more of the "sin-tax" mentality that MADD and other neo-prohibitionist groups are pushing.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Exactly.

And as for guns? I don't think banning them will help, just like I don't think banning abortion or stem-cell research will help.

*nodding agreement* Banning something doesn´t solve anything.








Now, I have time to response some of posts here.

 

[jillio]

Indeed.

I also find it funny how people blame taxes on alcohol and strict controls on the consumption of it on liberals. That is more of the "sin-tax" mentality that MADD and other neo-prohibitionist groups are pushing.

Absolutely. It is the conservative desire to legislate morality.

 

[Hwy99]

Prohibition of anything doesn't work.

Exactly.

Absolutely. It is the conservative desire to legislate morality.

And I find that unsuccessfully goal.

 

[jillio]

Exactly.



And I find that unsuccessfully goal.

Yep. Can't be done. But they seem to keep trying!:roll:

 

[Hwy99]

Yep. Can't be done. But they seem to keep trying!:roll:

*nods* I know.. :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

:roll:

He knows Washington people and bunch of other politicians that can be instrumental to having his bills passed. He did good for a while back then - clamping down on political corruption especially with campaign fund - Campaign Finance Reform.

McCain´s expertise doesn't qualify him to be president.

Not sure why or how he went crazy recently.

Because he don´t know how to positive his maturity, intelligence and attitude.

And as for his plan.... who knows? we all don't know any of Presidential candidates' real plan for a while after elected.

Americans need to know presidential candidates´ plan BEFORE election, not AFTER election.

I'd have to agree with you. Bush seems like a regular jolly fellow but too bad he sucks as the President.

Well, you must think Bush is a good president if you like McCain.

Obama talks good but nothing to deliver.

What you beleive is your decision.

McCain gets mad and delivered. I'll give you a few list of McCain's proposals -

To Detroit's Dismay, McCain Proposes Rise in Fuel Standards
Should Gun Shows Be Outlawed? McCain bill does much more than impose background checks (something that anti-gunner/liberals would love)
McCain, Bush agree on torture ban

I see nothing positive... Where´s economy, foreign affairs, healthcare, improve country?

I read online newspapers and watch TV to learn more about McCain and Obama.

You often said that McCain´s experience than Obama due many years as senator and know important people... but I don´t see anything positive about him from your post here...

McCain´s lack of knowledge is:

1. He talks nonsense.
2. He think Czechoslovakia still exists which it doesn´t exist anymore since January 1993.
3. He think Putin is the president of Germany.
4. He think that Somalia is the same place as Sudan.
5. He think that Iraq and Pakistan share a border
6. He confused about foreign affairs.
7. He admitted that he has no clue about enconomy.
8. He said he rather lose an election than a war.
9. He´s clueless about Americans' concerns.
10. He gets mad when he was being questioned by medias over his qualifications.
11. He spents more time talking negative about Obama than giving solutions about his plan for Americans and country.
12. He violated Army´s rules.
13. He doesn´t seem to care or know of copyright laws.
14. He doesn´t seem to know how postive his behavior manner.
15. He doesn´t bother to ask anyone for permisson to use their image, songs, etc.
16. He doesn´t seem to know what apology means when he said few days later after Kathy Hilton was being offense by his negative behavior to use use Paris and Brittany to negative Obama is a funny and joke and also insult Germans as throng of flawing.
17. He doesn´t seem to know what respect is about.
18. His computer illiteracy.
19. His bad temper.

Go on..........

Americans need a respectful and reliable leader, not warmonger.

McCain with those list as a president?

because McCain has been in the game for a long time and knows better than Obama on how it works.

GOOD LUCK! Sure I'd love to change America but it doesn't works the way you think. I'd give him a chance if he can improve Illinois but he hasn't much so how can he change USA? Illinois Senator for only 2-3 years? way too early to be in this Presidential race :roll:

Remember, he is a senator, not Governor.

Not always leaders are eloquent and charismatic. Obama may be eloquent and charismatic but if he can't deliver... then he is no different from Bush.

If you talk positive about McCain, you must think Bush is the same... because McCain and Bush shares the same view. It seem to me that McCain want to keep Bush´s system/era.


:roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I have to go now to work... I will make further response posts later.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Older workers are replaced with cheaper, faster, and younger workers because of new technology/equipment

How?

- just like Hollywood people are replaced by younger, prettier celebrities. old news.

McCain is guilty the same thing... no difference either he is old or young...

mccain and crowd - Google Bilder

What's your point?

:roll:

Washington is a brutal place and being the President doesn't really get you anywhere. When I said more experience and older.... it's because he's been in the game for a long time and knows enough people to gather supports to vote for bills. I don't know how Obama is going to get the job done with no solid support on his fence. but like I said - I'll keep a small hope for him and I do applaud for his audacity.

I prefer to have people bright the new ideas, use common sense to understand experience through logical thinking and also open mind as well.

I Obama's to make McCain look hypocritical with his positive common sense arguement.

Did you know Bill Clinton was a successful Governor of Arkansas at age 30 few years before he was elected to be president of USA. ? He is a brilliant guy and doing his duty as president good.


All what I want to say is no difference either there are long or short experience and old or young but use good common sense to understand the logical and experience is mainly important.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

for the response, Liebling. At least someone responded to my query, but I'm more curious about your reasoning behind your answers. The economy is a complex thing that's affected by so many factors. It's not like the president has buttons that say "Good Economy" and "Bad Economy". Anyway, here's my perspective, although I'm no economist and only have a limited understanding of how things work, so I'm sure there's plenty of room for debate here.

To me, it doesn't make sense to give Clinton all the credit for the good economy in the 90s but none of the blame for the recession at the end of his term. The main thing driving the good economy in the 90s was the rise of the internet. He had no control over that. If Clinton deserves credit for anything, it's signing the welfare reform bill, although the Republicans in Congress pushed that on him. The recession at the end of the 90s was caused by the burst of the internet bubble. So the very thing that drove economic progress in the 90s went too far and caused a bubble burst.

As for Bush, the fact that the economy did so well from 2003-2007 is pretty amazing considering the problems he faced- the economic recession left over from Clinton's term, 9/11, and all the corporate scandals like Enron, Tyco, etc. I think his tax cuts helped a lot with that.

I also feel that he deserves some, but not all, of the blame for the current economic slowdown. For his part, he spent and borrowed too much, and allowed the Republicans to spend far too much when they were in power. It was far more than war spending, too. It was entitlements, pork, etc. They were not acting like conservatives. However, the congress of the late 90s was also to blame. The current economic situation is largely due to the housing situation. In the late 90s, congress pushed lenders to give loans to riskier people. They were lamenting how hard it was for the poor to get home loans. So due to pressure, the lenders started giving risker "subprime" loans and sure enough, it didn't go well. Now congress is trying to blame "predatory lenders" for the problem. Some lenders may have been unscrupulous, but as usual, politicians create their own problems and then whine about it and refuse to take the blame. Then there are problems demand for oil going up and commodity prices increasing everywhere.

FYI: I'm not economy expert but I try my best to remember Clinton's economy history. I found some links to support my claim.

Before he was elected to be President of USA. He was a successful Governor of Arkansas and boost Economy and did his job great.

He had an experience what and how he did when he was a Governor and work to boost Economy and create million jobs and take care of people and their welfare, better education... decrease spendings.

see statistic in this link and judge yourself...

BBC News | BUSINESS | Bill Clinton's economic legacy

The Lowest Unemployment Rate in 30 Years

Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush - Issuepedia

During Clinton's presidency time, there was less terrorist attacks, less problems.

I assume that you would fresh my memory about Clinton's affair scandal with Monica... His scandal doesn't count me but mainly important is his lies don't kill thousands but Bush's lies does.

Bill Clinton has nothing do with 9/11 attack because he was not president at that time. He did not send soliders to Iraq but Bush. Clinton did nothing to hurt economy but Bush did. He did nothing when unemployment rates goes up but Bush did.

I only see that Clinton improve America's economy with decrease spendings but Bush hurt it through his senseless spendings.

I can see that Republicans use as an excuse to blame Clinton when they noticed that economy goes bad during Bush's presidency time. Clinton did economy good and then left... Bush choose to ignore Clinton's system but his own or follow his father's system ... He wants Iraq war at the start soon AFTER he won at his 1st election... Why? Because his father failed to arrest Saddam during Gulf War... He had Saddam at last because he hate Saddam and want to have him... He did it successful... but why continue Iraq war after Saddam's execution for? We found out the truth later that the oil is the reason, he go after... He lead us beleive that Saddam is the responsible for 9/11.... Nelson Mandela tried to stop Bush but we are too blind to ignore Mandela and beleive Bush because we were upset over 9/11 and innocent victims... Mandela was being accused as a terrorist because he against Iraq War soon after 9/11... During Saddam's arrest, we found out that he has nothing do with 9/11. Clinton is right for not want to go war... and Maneda is also right to know that Saddam has nothing do with it and stop Bush to go Iraq war in first place... Bush is the responsible to hurt economy... job loss... spend on war issues... high spendings...




Please correct if I'm mistake or not or fresh my memory...

 

[Jiro]

McCain´s expertise doesn't qualify him to be president.

and Obama's inexperience/intelligence doesn't qualify him to be president either. You surely have a lot of faith in newbie.

Americans need to know presidential candidates´ plan BEFORE election, not AFTER election.

no not really. You meant "Presidential candidate's stance" on certain issues. Bush/Clinton/any Presidents said a lot of things during races but did not really get it rolling as President.

Well, you must think Bush is a good president if you like McCain.

um.... I'm not sure where did you get that idea. I said Bush seems like a good man but too bad he SUCKS as the President. and who said I like McCain? I don't.

Remember, he is a senator, not Governor.

and your point is....? Don't you know Senator ranks higher than Governor? There are influences. Senator can fight/vote for proposal/bill/budget for his state or country. Obama did not do an impressive job as Senator. His political career is shaky at best.

 

[Jiro]

Did you know Bill Clinton was a successful Governor of Arkansas at age 30 few years before he was elected to be president of USA. ? He is a brilliant guy and doing his duty as president good.

All what I want to say is no difference either there are long or short experience and old or young but use good common sense to understand the logical and experience is mainly important.

Yes because Bill Clinton has far more experiences and expertise than Obama in political career. Clinton started his political career at late 20's. Obama? middle-to-late 30's and it's still fresh.

Like I said - Obama's political career is shaky at best and he's too early in the game. Give him another 10+ years... and some more solid record... I'd feel more confident voting for him. Like handful of us said - he's all talk and got nothing to back it up.

 

[Jiro]

FYI: I'm not economy expert but I try my best to remember Clinton's economy history. I found some links to support my claim.

Before he was elected to be President of USA. He was a successful Governor of Arkansas and boost Economy and did his job great.

He had an experience what and how he did when he was a Governor and work to boost Economy and create million jobs and take care of people and their welfare, better education... decrease spendings.

see statistic in this link and judge yourself...

BBC News | BUSINESS | Bill Clinton's economic legacy

The Lowest Unemployment Rate in 30 Years

Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush - Issuepedia

During Clinton's presidency time, there was less terrorist attacks, less problems.

I assume that you would fresh my memory about Clinton's affair scandal with Monica... His scandal doesn't count me but mainly important is his lies don't kill thousands but Bush's lies does.

Bill Clinton has nothing do with 9/11 attack because he was not president at that time. He did not send soliders to Iraq but Bush. Clinton did nothing to hurt economy but Bush did. He did nothing when unemployment rates goes up but Bush did.

I only see that Clinton improve America's economy with decrease spendings but Bush hurt it through his senseless spendings.

I can see that Republicans use as an excuse to blame Clinton when they noticed that economy goes bad during Bush's presidency time. Clinton did economy good and then left... Bush choose to ignore Clinton's system but his own or follow his father's system ... He wants Iraq war at the start soon AFTER he won at his 1st election... Why? Because his father failed to arrest Saddam during Gulf War... He had Saddam at last because he hate Saddam and want to have him... He did it successful... but why continue Iraq war after Saddam's execution for? We found out the truth later that the oil is the reason, he go after... He lead us beleive that Saddam is the responsible for 9/11.... Nelson Mandela tried to stop Bush but we are too blind to ignore Mandela and beleive Bush because we were upset over 9/11 and innocent victims... Mandela was being accused as a terrorist because he against Iraq War soon after 9/11... During Saddam's arrest, we found out that he has nothing do with 9/11. Clinton is right for not want to go war... and Maneda is also right to know that Saddam has nothing do with it and stop Bush to go Iraq war in first place... Bush is the responsible to hurt economy... job loss... spend on war issues... high spendings...

Please correct if I'm mistake or not or fresh my memory...

Not fair to compare Clinton to Bush aka War President. I do not trust Clinton at all in the time of war. Clinton SUCKS MISERABLY at war game. Look at Somalia. He handled it very poorly. I was very pissed. The lives of USA soldiers died in vain for nothing. He did not handle Bosnia quite well either. He SUCKS as Commander-in-Chief but he was a good President.

and what you just said about Clinton and 9/11 - it's controversial at best. You believe what you want to believe. I believe 9/11 was Clinton's fault. Like I said repeatedly - Clinton slashed a huge cut in defense budget which crippled our intelligence/military capability. Because of lack of manpower, intelligence capability, and budget - al queda was able to launch terrorist attack on USA which happened to occur in Bush's time.

and don't give Clinton too much credit on great economy. He just happened to be there at right time at right place.

 

[BradB08]

Here we go again with the "OMG! 9/11 was Clinton's fault!" crap. Look, Bush was nearly 9 months into his presidency when 9/11 happened. We had intelligence in August of 2001 in which was not acted upon.

 

[Hwy99]

I wonder if anyone had ever realized that US involvement with the Middle East wars was longer compare to their involvement with the WWII?

 

[Jiro]

Here we go again with the "OMG! 9/11 was Clinton's fault!" crap. Look, Bush was nearly 9 months into his presidency when 9/11 happened. We had intelligence in August of 2001 in which was not acted upon.

and whose fault was it for not preventing it in the first place? Surely... the whole planning and operation does not take 9 months. Bush got shit-faced with this problem left by Clinton.

we all know Clinton was a good president with memorable time of great economy but he still sucks as Command in Chief.

 

[Jiro]

I wonder if anyone had ever realized that US involvement with the Middle East wars was longer compare to their involvement with the WWII?

yea of course. it's old news anyway but sad

 

[BradB08]

and whose fault was it for not preventing it in the first place? Surely... the whole planning and operation does not take 9 months. Bush got shit-faced with this problem left by Clinton.

we all know Clinton was a good president with memorable time of great economy but he still sucks as Command in Chief.

I think you're still stuck in the past. You need to move on and stop blaming past Presidents and start blaming the current President for whatever has happened since he took office.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

[/color][/font]
and Obama's inexperience/intelligence doesn't qualify him to be president either. You surely have a lot of faith in newbie.

You should compare McCain's and Obama's intelligence... :roll: Why you keep on call Obama inexperience when he have good qualification background?

Mr Obama studied political science at Columbia University in New York and then left to attend Harvard Law school, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. After Harvard, he returned to Chicago to practise civil rights law, representing victims of housing and employment discrimination...

BBC NEWS | Americas | Profile: Barack Obama

McCain - Just Military background and then Political career.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Profile: John McCain

no not really. You meant "Presidential candidate's stance" on certain issues. Bush/Clinton/any Presidents said a lot of things during races but did not really get it rolling as President.

Actually, but mainly important to use your good common sense and follow your heart & feeling either you can trust McCain or Obama to be president of your country..

um.... I'm not sure where did you get that idea. I said Bush seems like a good man but too bad he SUCKS as the President. and who said I like McCain? I don't.

I only suggest because you positive McCain and negative Obama in many of your posts.

and your point is....? Don't you know Senator ranks higher than Governor? There are influences. Senator can fight/vote for proposal/bill/budget for his state or country. Obama did not do an impressive job as Senator. His political career is shaky at best.

Actually, there're many senators who voted against each other but the Governor is the one who makes the decision.