McCain Vs. Obama.

[HdVaderII]

As Obama has finally obtained all of the delegates he needs for the Democratic Nominee, he's now facing McCain.

 

What are your thoughts on who would make a better president?

I like Obama, but I'm open to hear what other people think about both of them.

[Ghost Down]

McCain gets my vote (If I could vote )

 

America needs a strong leader, who can defend it's country and allies. Besides, the goverment ain't gonna let a black man be President.

[Arcesious]

the goverment ain't gonna let a black man be President.

 

Don't be so sure... If it comes to a stupid battle over skin color, Obama will probably deliver anti-racism speech, turning a lot of people on his side.

 

Mccaine seems like a good, serious president, but I honestly have looked at both of their presidential plans, and I have to say that IMO, Obama's plan for the economy is better than Mccaine's plan.

 

Sure I don't want Clinton as VP, but it's important that the democratic party gets united again. Whoever Mccaine makes VP, I don't know yet, but I may sway slightly in his favor if he picks Ron Paul or Mitt Romney.

 

The only reason my father is voting for Mccaine is because of conflicting beleifs with Obama, IE, Obama's stance on Gay Marriage while still being a Christian. The only reason he wants to vote for Mccaine is becuase of that, and that he hopes that Paul or Romeny is Mccaine's VP.

[Ghost Down]

I'm not a racist or anything, but I just can't see a black man as the President of the US of A. Especially when his full name is Barrack Obama.

 

Just imagine: ''Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States of America. Barrack Obama'' *shivers*

[Arcesious]

I'm not calling you racist, but I don't see what his name has to do with anything. He's not muslim. I can see what you mean, as John Mccaine's name being announced sounds more 'proper', but I doubt that kind of feeling will make much of a differene in voting.

[Web Rider]

I'm not a racist or anything, but I just can't see a black man as the President of the US of A. Especially when his full name is Barrack Obama.

 

Just imagine: ''Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States of America. Barrack Obama'' *shivers*

 

For somebody who's not even from the US you seem a rather bigoted person. Perhaps you believe a black man will never be a US president because you know there will never be a black man as the PM or President of yours.

 

Personally, I think McCain will obliterate Obama. Which is really sad because McCain sucks now that he's not holding to his own ideas. If he was, I'd be voting for him, but since he's just toting BS party line, I might as well be electing Bush again, and that's just not gonna fly.

[mimartin]

I'm not a racist or anything, but I just can't see a black man as the President of the US of A.

I cannot see it at this time either, but in 229 days 10 and around 52 minutes I hope to see an African American take office. Although I will be doing a dance no matter who wins the election. I will just be glad the last guy is moving out. Only hope he does not move back to Texas and ruin the neighborhood.

[Ghost Down]

Personally, I think McCain will obliterate Obama.

 

Yeah, I agree on you with that. The only ones who are gonna vote on Obama are afro-Americans and some liberal sissies. The majority of America, the working white class will vote on McCain for sure.

[Web Rider]

Yeah, I agree on you with that. The only ones who are gonna vote on Obama are afro-Americans and some liberal sissies. The majority of America, the working white class will vote on McCain for sure.

 

Can you please kindly stop making comments about how Americans will vote considering you aren't one? For one it's very insulting, and secondly it's entirely incorrect.

 

The black population has supported both Obama and Hillary(when it comes to democrats), and "working class" has generally been in favor of Hillary, and Obama has largely been voted for by educated whites.(still talking about democrat voters).

[Arcesious]

Yeah, I agree on you with that. The only ones who are gonna vote on Obama are afro-Americans and some liberal sissies. The majority of America, the working white class will vote on McCain for sure.

 

Yeah... See, the thing is, that's an argument using Ad hominem... Web Rider already pointed out what else I was going to say, so I won't go on about that.

[MdKnightR]

What are your thoughts on who would make a better president?

 

Isn't it obvious?

[HdVaderII]

Isn't it obvious?

I completely forgot about Ron Paul!

I support Obama, and I don't know if I like the idea of him and Hillary teaming up.

They might be able to semi-unite the party, but I wouldn't want them both in the white house.

I might as well be electing Bush again

*Shivers *

[Web Rider]

*Shivers *

 

Considering that McCain gave up his nice, reasonable, level-headed ideas that he's held for years to tote party line, yeah, it is.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I'm hoping McCain selling out will cost him enough votes for Obama to win. Him not supporting the GI bill and being essentially a really old version of Bush now can't make a lot of people happy, and I'm hoping they're ticked enough to vote for Obama.

[ForeverNight]

If I could vote for anybody in this election, it would be with McCain.

 

Mainly because I don't think negotiating with Iran is such a good idea, sure, one can pull out the Soviet Union and point out that we negotiated with them, but the Soviet Union was a real threat at the time as compared to Iran. In Iran they're working on a nuclear weapons program -so I've seen reported by the Media- but they don't have nukes... yet.

 

So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?!

 

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him?

 

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.

 

Of course, that's horribly simplistic, but it gets my point across, hopefully. Do I think McCain selling out some of his ideas is a good thing? No! Do I think that McCain will be similar to Bush? Yes! Do I think Bush is this horrible, stupid, ninny who can't find his rear with a map, both hands, a group of friends, and a dog? No!

 

So, because of that... and the fact that I disagree with most every policy I've seen Obama put forward on his running platform, I'd vote McCain if I could...

 

...2012... ...come closer...

[Web Rider]

I'm hoping McCain selling out will cost him enough votes for Obama to win. Him not supporting the GI bill and being essentially a really old version of Bush now can't make a lot of people happy, and I'm hoping they're pissed enough to vote for Obama.

 

Yeah, he's not even as religious as Bush and he can't lie about that, and that makes him unappealing to the religious right that got Bush elected.

 

Honestly, I don't understand how an injured POW veteran can NOT support the GI bill.

 

Mainly because I don't think negotiating with Iran is such a good idea, sure, one can pull out the Soviet Union and point out that we negotiated with them, but the Soviet Union was a real threat at the time as compared to Iran. In Iran they're working on a nuclear weapons program -so I've seen reported by the Media- but they don't have nukes... yet.

 

So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?!

Obama said nothing about negotiation, he said "talk" to them. And remember, Iran agreed with the US in our war against the Taliban. Perhaps talking with them will stop them from hating the US? A lot of their "hate" is just saber rattling anyway.

 

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him?

That's called Mutually Assured Destruction, it did nothing good for the Cold War aside keeping everyone from nuking each other. Iran does not have the capability to nuke the US. Please don't say "they might sell them to terrorists!" Terrorists can get nukes from the Ukraine if they want them.

 

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.

and by talking to them, we may prevent them from building nukes, or at least using them(which I HIGHLY doubt they'd do). Iran is not some pushover nation like Afghanistan and Iraq.

[ForeverNight]

Obama said nothing about negotiation, he said "talk" to them. And remember, Iran agreed with the US in our war against the Taliban. Perhaps talking with them will stop them from hating the US? A lot of their "hate" is just saber rattling anyway.[/Quote]

 

Alright, Talk to them does not mean negotiation? When did that happen? If you say that you'll talk to somebody in politics, that will usually mean negotiation. Right? So, I can reasonably assume that by saying that you'll talk to [insert Random Country Here] when you are running for election for [insert Random Title for Executive Office Here] you're just going to be asking them what the weather is like?

 

Sure, you tell yourself that.

 

That's called Mutually Assured Destruction, it did nothing good for the Cold War aside keeping everyone from nuking each other. Iran does not have the capability to nuke the US. Please don't say "they might sell them to terrorists!" Terrorists can get nukes from the Ukraine if they want them.[/Quote]

 

I wasn't going to bring up the selling to terrorists, since I'm more concerned with a nation that has a government that's openly hostile to us having the capability to use nukes. If Iran pushed the figurative button, do you think that we would?

 

I wish I could say that I think we would push the button right back and glass the country, but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.

 

At least, that's the feeling I get from Politicians... (All of which are slimy B*****ds)

 

and by talking to them, we may prevent them from building nukes, or at least using them(which I HIGHLY doubt they'd do). Iran is not some pushover nation like Afghanistan and Iraq.[/Quote]

 

So by asking nicely we're going to get them to stop?

 

"Excuse me, but you're working on building nukes, and we won't you to stop?"

 

Yeah, sure. That might work, but, it's like the 'I' Sentences that we were supposed to memorize in 4th grade (I don't like what you're doing and I want you to stop.) that you were supposed to say to bullies... I can't see that working with an openly hostile nation.

 

Honestly, I don't understand how an injured POW veteran can NOT support the GI bill.[/Quote]

 

Glad to see that I do see eye to eye with you on something though!

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

So, what are we going to do, wait until they have nukes, then negotiate with them? This country that hates our guts is going to get nukes one of these days, and Obama wants to negotiate??? What the heck?!?!?!

So, attack them? An incredibly basic military strategy is to make your enemy fight himself. We attack Iran, spread out our troops even more, create more debt, increase civil unrest, and simultaneously increase the amount of the support the average citizen in the Middle East would be willing to give terrorists and decrease the international community's support of our actions. By doing such a thing, we would "bleed out" and guarantee a complete lack of national security.

 

You're also seeing the people of Iran as war-loving *******s. Many young people there are against the current government there. In addition, even if they could launch a nuclear weapon against us, they'd have even more to lose than us due to our massive nuclear arsenal. Mutually Assured Destruction, they wipe out one of our cities, we almost automatically wipe out their entire country.

 

As for them selling nuclear weapons to terrorists, I'm not too worried. The nuclear material needed can be traced (once again BAD END for them), and there are already quite a few former Soviet republics whose citizens have ICBMs with nuclear warheads sitting in their front lawns.

 

If crazed man is pointing a gun at you and your pointing a gun at him, do you negotiate with him, ("I'll put my gun down first and I will not hurt you, but in exchange, you have to let me take out five bullets from your clip." Or do you pray and shoot him?

Negotiate. I'm not about to risk both of us dying because of a dick waving contest. And nice touch with the bull**** compromise, it really makes negotiation look like the bitch route.

 

Or, even better, prevention is better than a cure. We prevent them from getting nukes, not try to take away the nukes that they've somehow managed to get.

And we can't do that through negotiation? I'm not saying we just have to ask politely for them to stop their nuclear weapons program (if it exists) and then sit around with our thumbs up our asses while they think about whether they will or not, at this point the U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth, and the threatening the use of force will go a long way because of that -- I'd rather take a more civilized approach, however.

 

 

All in all, I see your post as fear of not being the world's Sheriff character anymore, who swaggers into town and starts a gun fight in the town square. The thing is, the people buying groceries in the town square usually get shot, and that's unacceptable when the bandits could be persuaded to become deputies.

[Web Rider]

Alright, Talk to them does not mean negotiation? When did that happen? If you say that you'll talk to somebody in politics, that will usually mean negotiation.

No, not really. You don't have to bring facts and figures to the tables in order to get along better with the world community.

 

Right? So, I can reasonably assume that by saying that you'll talk to [insert Random Country Here] when you are running for election for [insert Random Title for Executive Office Here] you're just going to be asking them what the weather is like?

By talking to them, they can attempt to persuade them to be allies instead of enemies. If that is done, their possession of nukes won't matter because they won't use them on us.

 

I wasn't going to bring up the selling to terrorists, since I'm more concerned with a nation that has a government that's openly hostile to us having the capability to use nukes. If Iran pushed the figurative button, do you think that we would?

Russia is outwardly hostile to us. N Korea is outwardly hostile to us. Pakistan isn't our best of friends. Heck, most of Europe isn't real fond of us right now, and a good selection of Europe has nukes. And yeah, I'm pretty sure if we were nuked we'd nuke back, but there's two problems with this logic: It assumes Iran plans to attack the US, so far, the US is the only country I've seen with plans to attack Iran. And two, that even if they did want to go to war with us, they'd be crazy enough to use nukes.

 

I wish I could say that I think we would push the button right back and glass the country, but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.

I think you're kidding yourself, but ok.

 

So by asking nicely we're going to get them to stop?

 

"Excuse me, but you're working on building nukes, and we won't you to stop?"

Well, it'd be a better start than "IF YOU DON'T STOP BUILDING NUKES WE'RE GONNA BOMB YOU AND PUT SANCTIONS ON YOU!!!!"

 

Yeah, sure. That might work, but, it's like the 'I' Sentences that we were supposed to memorize in 4th grade (I don't like what you're doing and I want you to stop.) that you were supposed to say to bullies... I can't see that working with an openly hostile nation.

Perhaps it's because we've got the proverbial gun in their face too? Why should they play nice when we're just as willing as you assume they are to bomb them flat?

 

Glad to see that I do see eye to eye with you on something though!

always a silver lining! :-p

[ForeverNight]

You're also seeing the people of Iran as war-loving *******s.[/Quote]

 

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like that, I know that the people aren't war mongers, but the Government at least gives the impression of being such.

 

Negotiate. I'm not about to risk both of us dying because of a dick waving contest. And nice touch with the bull**** compromise, it really makes negotiation look like the bitch route.[/Quote]

 

Yeah, over a dick waving contest. However, when a crazy guy (I'm talking at least with the M'Naughten Rule: Cannot tell the difference between Right and Wrong) does the same, that changes it. A crazy man by definition does not know the difference between right and wrong, and may decide to pull that trigger because it looks like fun, not because he hates you. That's what has me worried in that situation.

 

Yeah, wimpy compromise, but if what I've heard about SALT is true, and I honestly haven't done as much research into it as I should have -with summer I'll be able to remedy that- the Soviets didn't really abide by it, did they? So, yeah, that's what those looked like.

 

Also, with Diplomacy, you always will have to agree with the guy you're negotiating with if he/she has an advantage over you, or an apparent advantage, so why bother, you might get a concession, but rarely what you seem to want out of it.

 

All in all, I see your post as fear of not being the world's Sheriff character anymore[/Quote]

 

Yeah, if somebody has to 'police the world' I sure as H*** don't want it to be the UN! And, as the world's sole superpower, currently, who else is going to do the job? The EU? They like appeasement. China? Sorry, don't want the communists doing it. So, that leaves us.

 

Do I wish somebody else was available for the job? Yes!

 

Also, I wouldn't want to fight fair and give the other guy a chance of living through it if I were the Sheriff that needs to clear out [Random Bandits] who have been terrorizing the town for x [Random Period of Time]. Nope, not happening, we want them gone, and we don't want them able to start again.

 

Could some of them conceivably become deputies in the next year? Yeah, sure, but what's going to happen in that space of a year?

[ForeverNight]

ussia is outwardly hostile to us. N Korea is outwardly hostile to us. Pakistan isn't our best of friends. Heck, most of Europe isn't real fond of us right now, and a good selection of Europe has nukes. And yeah, I'm pretty sure if we were nuked we'd nuke back, but there's two problems with this logic: It assumes Iran plans to attack the US, so far, the US is the only country I've seen with plans to attack Iran. And two, that even if they did want to go to war with us, they'd be crazy enough to use nukes.[/Quote]

 

Russia, yeah they dislike us and they have nukes. However, how many of them are in working condition? Do I think they are a problem, yes, but do I think that they are the most pressing problem? Nope.

 

N. Korea, also a problem, and probably more pressing than Iran, however I thought that Obama also recognized this and had plans more than negotiation with them... I should probably check that again...

 

Well, it'd be a better start than "IF YOU DON'T STOP BUILDING NUKES WE'RE GONNA BOMB YOU AND PUT SANCTIONS ON YOU!!!!"[/Quote]

 

So, flat out saying that is worse than the "I don't like it..."? Wow... I would rather start with something like you said, but to each their own. However, if I were to start with that, I wouldn't yell it, I would try to say it in a calmer voice, and drop the sanctions bit, just the 'we're gonna bomb you to H***' bit.

 

Perhaps it's because we've got the proverbial gun in their face too? Why should they play nice when we're just as willing as you assume they are to bomb them flat?[/Quote]

 

By we're I'm assuming to mean that you mean they're.

 

So its okay for them to wave the gun, but not us? But, the main difference in the situation that you're describing and the one I can see is that they don't have the gun, yet, however they are in the process of acquiring one, and have at least given off every appearance of wanting to use it right away on some live targets. That and they couldn't bomb us flat, we could probably blast the country to heck, but not them us.

 

 

Is this really off-topic or is this just me? Also, thanks for not having much more the respond to, My fingers are complaining of having to type out the

over and over!

 

Edit: Sorry about the Double post!

[ET Warrior]

but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.

I'm confused...what is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another one?

[Arcesious]

Honestly, I think that we need to negotiate with Russia and Europe some more. If we can become allies with them after we pull out of the middle east, then maybe terrorists would start to think twice about trying to contend with us, and maybe the world will cool down a bit. We have to get out of other people's buisness. We never should have gone into the middle east in the first, place, with the first president bush. We should have waited until we were stable. We shouldn't do something stupid like this ever again until our technology advances far enough for us to be self-dependent. Maybe, if we pull out there, and start negotiating again, we'll get some respect from other countries. And Mccaine isn't the kind of president that Europe, Russia, and other countries are going to respect. We've got to stop fighting these people, and start rebuilding our economy. Mutually Assured destruction should be enough, hopefully.

 

Is this really off-topic or is this just me? Also, thanks for not having much more the respond to, My fingers are complaining of having to type out the (quote=Web Rider) over and over!

 

You could just do what I do, and either just put the

signs without naming the person posting, or click the quote/reply button.

 

I'm confused...what is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another one?

 

The USA may be the only country that's ever done that, but times change. I say we bulk up our defense technology to be able to counter all that Russian ICBM technology, and then nengotiate with the other countries, being completely (Okay, maybe not totally, as there are soem things best left unsaid) honest about everything, once we have the defenses to counter anything they'd throw at us if they found out about certain things about us. We have to earn the trust of other countries. I don't know about you, but Putin seems to be a reasonable person.

[mimartin]

I wish I could say that I think we would push the button right back and glass the country, but we wouldn't. Why? Because we're the "Good Guys" and they don't nuke other countries, even when nuked.

First let me say I agree with Truman's call. The U.S. would not use nukes against other countries, because we are the good guys? Does that mean the U.S. was the bad guys in WWII when we did use nukes? What other country in the world has used nukes against another country besides the U.S.?

[TK-8252]

Vote for McCain if you would like to see four more years of George Bush's policies. That's all there is to it. If you like the current state of our economy and our foreign policy, then John McCain is your man.

 

While I'm not a liberal (I voted for Ron Paul in my state's primary), I will be voting for Obama in 2008. While I may not agree with him on some things, such as those policies which would give more power to the government, I actually agree with him on more things than McCain. Besides, the Republicans are the ones who actually expand government, despite their empty rhetoric of lower taxes and smaller government. Republicans just use different means to expand government... such as by claiming that their expansions are vital to "national security," which is the authoritarian way to power.

 

When I see McCain talking on TV I just can't help but think he's a really weak candidate who is in no way prepared to take on the charisma of Obama. I really have to hand it to Obama... the man can work a crowd.