| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
IVNORD 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:25 |
 micky wrote:
just how much of a reality that there is a chance that the ex-city councilwoman from sh*thole Alaska could be the next President. In a VERY dangerous world today..
|
Substitute Arkansas for Alaska and you can see it's not unthinkable. An the world wasnt a less dengerous place 16 years ago. Nothing good came out of it though, I agree with you here.
|
 |
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:27 |
NaturalScience wrote:
I still think McCain needed some energy in the conservative base and the conservatives love her.
|
scary
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46843
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:29 |
IVNORD wrote:
micky wrote:
what town was that she was councilman of...
|
Your Olympian condescension is really appaling......
Obama's experience in the Illinois Senate fares not much better.
As for the foreign policy, if elected, she will have to learn it while being #2; he will have to take a crash course the way Clinton did. Remember that great foreign policy maker? |
 I try my best... yes... but he understands that is preferable to talk first then fight.... something the Republicans forgot on the way to the OK Corral Bring em' On? Yeah... whose blood was spilled when they did. I'll take his 'inexperience' over what passes for experience any day. Clinton's foreign policy ... was his most underappreciated aspect to his presidency. He was quite shrewd at it.. he was a quick learner
Edited by micky - August 29 2008 at 21:30
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:51 |
micky wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
micky wrote:
what town was that she was councilman of...
|
Your Olympian condescension is really appaling......
Obama's experience in the Illinois Senate fares not much better.
As for the foreign policy, if elected, she will have to learn it while being #2; he will have to take a crash course the way Clinton did. Remember that great foreign policy maker? |
I try my best...
yes... but he understands that is preferable to talk first then fight.... something the Republicans forgot on the way to the OK Corral |
Maybe not all Republicans... It's hard to tell what would have happened had McCain stayed in the race in 2000. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq today.
micky wrote:
Clinton's foreign policy ... was his most underappreciated aspect to his presidency. He was quite shrewd at it.. he was a quick learner
|
Clinton's foreign and domestic policy is what we are payng for today and will be paying for years to come. And he was so shrewd at disguising it as his great achievments that lots of people still consider him a great president.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 21:58 |
|
The vice presidential candidates match their presidential candidates counterparts in quality. Neither for me.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46843
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 22:07 |
god I love quote pyramids.. and in my mentors honor... a response
IVNORD wrote:
micky wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
micky wrote:
what town was that she was councilman of...
|
Your Olympian condescension is really appaling......
Obama's experience in the Illinois Senate fares not much better.
As for the foreign policy, if elected, she will have to learn it while being #2; he will have to take a crash course the way Clinton did. Remember that great foreign policy maker? |
,
I try my best...
yes... but he understands that is preferable to talk first then fight.... something the Republicans forgot on the way to the OK Corral |
Maybe not all Republicans... It's hard to tell what would have happened had McCain stayed in the race in 2000. Maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq today.
I agree, as I've posted before.. I have a great deal of respect for McCain.. and his judgment. Listen.. I don't talk about it much at all here.. it isn't anyone's business.. and the fact I was.. doesn't make my opinion better or worse than anyone's. but I served on the ground in the first gulf war. I respect a man who serves his country. Not everyone does that.. and I don't hold that against them either if they don't. McCain knows the cost of war. I would feel a LOT less comfortable with Obama if he WAS a hawk and ready to throw down lives first without doing everything possible first. I would trust McCain.. if he was elected.. to not needless waste the life of our people.. or anyone's people for that matter. My problems with him.. are economic.
micky wrote:
Clinton's foreign policy ... was his most underappreciated aspect to his presidency. He was quite shrewd at it.. he was a quick learner
|
Clinton's foreign and domestic policy is what we are payng for today and will be paying for years to come. And he was so shrewd at disguising it as his great achievments that lots of people still consider him a great president. You are the one who gives Clinton far too much credit brother. People are not idiots.. you can stick a flower and spring perfume on a pile of sh*t.. and you know what.. it is still sh*t. He was a great President to many.. because he WAS a great President to many.
Let me ask you a question.. why did the GOP go to SUCH great lengths to destroy him. They knew he was as well.. and his success... would have the birth of a new centrist Democratic Party... that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating... so they went after the figurehead. From a purely intellectual point.. it was BRILLIANT strategy.. and it worked. While they didn't get rid of him.. he spend the years defending himself from his PURELY PERSONAL issues... that he could have really changed the political dynamic in this country. Great politics.. but look where we ended up. We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing. |
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 22:44 |
micky wrote:
My problems with him.. are economic. |
could you elaborate?
micky wrote:
Let me ask you a question.. why did the GOP go to SUCH great lengths to destroy him. They knew he was as well.. and his success... would have the birth of a new centrist Democratic Party... that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating... so they went after the figurehead. |
He was a great manipulator. The GOP went after him because he could have created a mirage called a " new centrist Democratic Party" that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating, you are right. That was politics. A dogfight inside the two-party system. What good would it do to the people?
micky wrote:
From a purely intellectual point.. it was BRILLIANT strategy.. and it worked. |
From a purely academic point it was. So what? Would you be better off?
micky wrote:
While they didn't get rid of him.. he spend the years defending himself from his PURELY PERSONAL issues... |
That was a soap opera. The entire 106th congress should have been publicly executed for that
micky wrote:
Great politics.. but look where we ended up. |
He ended up where he deserved. There are no miracles in this world.
micky wrote:
We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing.
|
Don't you think we are still paying for the financial bubble he created just to get re-elected?
P.S. Do you realize that Clinton did more for the big money than Reagan and Bush together? speaking of the new centrist Democratic Party
Edited by IVNORD - August 29 2008 at 22:47
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 22:50 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The vice presidential candidates match their presidential candidates counterparts in quality. Neither for me. |
NOt going to vote?
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 23:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46843
|
Posted: August 30 2008 at 07:33 |
IVNORD wrote:
micky wrote:
My problems with him.. are economic. |
could you elaborate?
easy.... while very liberal socially... I am an economic moderate. One of the more interesting developments over the last 20 years or so is how the GOP have lost their way with regards to economic policy. They used to be the party of economic convservatism. They are not that anymore. They have become the party of tax-cuts at any cost. Holding on the silly idea that trickle down economics actually works. When the companies make extra profits.. ask yourself brother.. do we see it... no we don't. That money goes to larger executive saleries and benefit packages. The rich have gotten richer... the middle class lives in fear..and lower class continues to struggle just to survive. I believe in many of the old things that the GOP used to believe in. Fiscal responsibility. I pay taxes .. always have always will. I don't mind paying them.. I don't mind paying more... as long as I know that money is going to places where it is needed. Not into a CEO's pocket.
micky wrote:
Let me ask you a question.. why did the GOP go to SUCH great lengths to destroy him. They knew he was as well.. and his success... would have the birth of a new centrist Democratic Party... that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating... so they went after the figurehead. |
He was a great manipulator. The GOP went after him because he could have created a mirage called a " new centrist Democratic Party" that the GOP would have had a world of problems defeating, you are right. That was politics. A dogfight inside the two-party system. What good would it do to the people?
micky wrote:
From a purely intellectual point.. it was BRILLIANT strategy.. and it worked. |
From a purely academic point it was. So what? Would you be better off?
micky wrote:
While they didn't get rid of him.. he spend the years defending himself from his PURELY PERSONAL issues... |
That was a soap opera. The entire 106th congress should have been publicly executed for that
Amen
micky wrote:
Great politics.. but look where we ended up. |
He ended up where he deserved. There are no miracles in this world. Yes... Clinton got what he deserves.. he lost the opportunity to be considered one of the greatest Presidents in history ... for all he did accomplish. Personally... I could care less. what I am concerned about is the direction of this country. The 'win at all costs' mentality that pervades the GOP. Division rather than unity. That is where we at today.. .did we deserve that. No.. and that is not because Clinton came on Monica's dress... that is because ...the politics of division.. and pursuit of power.. were far more important than the serious issues of governing and working FOR the people. Was it any surprise that years down the road the failure of the GOP led Congress became apparant to all. They never did care for governing.. only pursuing THEIR adjenda.
micky wrote:
We are not paying for Clinton now.. in fact..we are paying for the what he was unable to finish doing.
|
Don't you think we are still paying for the financial bubble he created just to get re-elected? we are paying for a great many things... blaming Clinton for them is shortsited and partisan. And simply the easy way out dude.
P.S. Do you realize that Clinton did more for the big money than Reagan and Bush together? speaking of the new centrist Democratic Party
that again is the point... he did... and he did for common Americans as well... the is why the common peope.. AND big business loved him. Why the GOP so feared him..and his centrist policies.
|
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: August 30 2008 at 11:19 |
|
A simplistic viewpoint is things will never change until the people get the smarts and the balls to vote in a third party into the Presidential office. Once we show them that we can put someone into the office that is not from a mainstream party they might take notice and fear that change many follow in the House and Senate as well. This is only a pipe dream but we created this fiasco. We allow it to continue because it is more harder to change things. We like to sleep at night thinking that these politicians actually care about the average man. They care little about anyone that cannot allow them to keep their power. They like to throw out things like town hall meetings but when was the last time either party held a $10 a plate fund raising dinner so that the average American can rub elbows with them? Even on the state level you are lucky to see a fund raising dinner for a Congressman or Senator that's under $250 a plate. Politics is not for the common man nor do the parties care about the majority of those that they serve. They care only about the top 5% of the food chain. Everyone will say that it is the top 5% that pay the majority of taxes, while this is true it is not the top 5% of the people are not doing the jobs that keep this country running. It is the bottom 95% that is.
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: August 30 2008 at 22:30 |
I hate to break up this serious discussion (ok, that's a lie), but 
|
|
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 02:02 |
rileydog22 wrote:
I hate to break up this serious discussion (ok, that's a lie), but
|
|
|
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 02:03 |
|
I actually voted neither, lol.
|
|
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 02:18 |
|
Both candidates suck for me. Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself. I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote.
|
|
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 04:00 |
rileydog22 wrote:
Both candidates suck for me. Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself. I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote. |
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
As someone who is voting for McCain, he made a terrible choice. Obama made a fairly good one.
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 07:10 |
When I first saw that McCain picked Palin for his VP candidate, I thought, sweet...Michael Palin for VP, I'm gonna change my vote to McCain now. How disappointed I was when I found out it was some chick from Alaska. 
I mean Alaska's not even a real state. How much experience can you get being the governor of a state with a population of 14 and an annual budget of $75?
Edited by The Doctor - August 31 2008 at 07:16
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46843
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 07:51 |
The Doctor wrote:
When I first saw that McCain picked Palin for his VP candidate, I thought, sweet...Michael Palin for VP, I'm gonna change my vote to McCain now. How disappointed I was when I found out it was some chick from Alaska.
I mean Alaska's not even a real state. How much experience can you get being the governor of a state with a population of 14 and an annual budget of $75? |
yep.. like I say... never a good thing when your VP candidate is the punchline of jokes right off the bat. This after having your judgment questioned... HAMMERED in a speech the night before which was seen by 40 million people. If he wanted to shore up the 'right' ... he had plenty of experienced people to have done that. He had met her once.... like 6 months ago... and just offered her the job. wow...
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 08:36 |
The Doctor wrote:
When I first saw that McCain picked Palin for his VP candidate, I thought, sweet...Michael Palin for VP, I'm gonna change my vote to McCain now. How disappointed I was when I found out it was some chick from Alaska.
I mean Alaska's not even a real state. How much experience can you get being the governor of a state with a population of 14 and an annual budget of $75? |
It's got huge tracks of land.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: August 31 2008 at 13:28 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
rileydog22 wrote:
Both candidates suck for me. Even the libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, sucks, and I'm pretty libertarian myself. I'm not going to be quite old enough to vote in this election, and even if I was old enough I probably wouldn't vote. |
RON PAUL REVOLUTION?
|
Paul aught to have run Libertarian. He's a thousand times better than that spineless Barr. Barr doesn't actually take a strong stand on any of the issues that define the Libertarian party. He has no platform. It makes me insanely angry. ANGRY.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Vice President choices.
