Hillary or Obama? Is the US ready for either?

[Rave]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Can you all, calmly and maturely describe what is wrong with Hillary and Obama? Why aren't we ready, and do you think that the Republican canidates are actually better, and why?

None of the above,we have nothing to choose from that even resembles what a president should be!

Originally Posted by lorcin25

I think all of the candidates lack a backbone.

They sure don't lack a greedy gut as they sit there slobbering over the possibility to take their place at the trough that used to be the white house and the oval office inhabited by statesmen,not a bunch of backstabbing hogs!

[BunnyWabbit]

Watching the petty arguing shows me both of their mentalities. My reasons for Hitlary are:

1. Our biggest problem is the Middle East, the leaders of those countries will not respect a woman, like it or not.
2. She is anti-gun - that's a big one.
3. She is too power hungry
4. She makes sure she slams both of the Bush presidents every chance she gets. It's getting old and her personality is that of a slug going through the mid-age crisis.
5. Last thing we need is ol' Slick Willie back in the White House, the interns will need to be on birth control.

As for Obama...
1. Since he is black, he will make sure he spends a lot more time on their issues, whether or not it affects the entire country.
2. He doesn't have a lot of experience.
3. Just because Oprah had him on her show doesn't mean he will make the best president. The majority of people who saw that show are unemployed women.

Racist or not, there are going to be certain issues with either having a black president or a woman president. While we would like to get past that point, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

[Rave]

Originally Posted by KGunner

I am not ready for the huge scale of socialism they both support. Whenever you hear something like "For the greater good" it usually means we all pay and reap little reward, if any. Obama has NO experience, and Hillary might as well not. Want to see how good she is lawmaking? Look at the New York public school system, by far the WORST in the entire nation, one of the worst public school systems of any industrialized nation. She contributed to that, no doubt about it. Sure Obama is a great speaker and charismatic, but he has been campaigning longer than he has been a senator. Has he accomplished anything of any significance? No. They both have NO foreign policy experience at all. I don't care if Hillary did spend 8 years in the white house, so do the maids and cooks and all them people. I am actually scared that either of them will be elected, I am down right frightened. I don't see it as black or white or man or woman, I see it on a political plane, and neither of them are any good at anything besides campaigning.

Obama sounds like a soap box commercial,I'm the best,new and improved,you won't have clean clothes until you try me,all BS and no substance,
Hillery sounds like a desperate waneing BS artist trying to imitate someone of substance.

[Windwalker]

I think that the people of the U.S. could accept either a black or a woman as President if they were duly elected. However, I don't think the majority of the American people want either of these.
Tlarkin, I disagree with you about lawyers. They are trained to argue, conceal facts, twist reality, twist the law, confuse or coerce the jurors, and outright lie to win a case.You say that lying is a trait of human nature. Used in the context that all people who can talk have told a lie at sometime in their life, it is probably true. But if you are saying all humans are habitual liars, then I beg to differ. I have known men in my lifetime whose word was their bond. When they gave you their word and a handshake you did not need a written document. Of course that was in a time when there weren't so many lawyers.

[Rave]

Originally Posted by troy2000

I'm not touching this one, lorcin25. I'm due for a rest...

But,but,you don't want to rest now,you're man is so close to winning!

[TXplt]

Yes--America is ready.

I believe it would be simply awful for both history and the country if Hillary were the first woman present.

Only the country, if it's Obama.

Luckily, I really doubt it'll be either. The democratic party is beginning to fracture. The only thing which would make the ticket electable is if Obama were in the #1 slot and Hillary in the #2 slot. This would address the electorate's issues with Hillary being unlikable (etc.) and a woman representing the US in a world with islamic terrorism. I don't think she'd go for this.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Bravo

A professor in an Engineering class that I recently took made the statement:
To show what's wrong with our Government, and why China is doing so well, look at it like this: Most of our Government is comprised of lawyers. Most of China's government is comprised of Engineers, Scientists, and Doctors...

Explain to me why engineers, scientists and doctors are somehow more qualified to run a government than other professions? None of those three really involve handling people in large groups, or dealing with economics or self-defense, or any other skills directly related to governing the people. Your engineering prof has an understandable but in my opinion unwarranted bias...

Besides, I take exception to his basic premise: that China is "doing so well." I sure as heck wouldn't trade there for here. They're destroying their environment; mistreating their labor force; rapidly developing a bigger gap between upper and lower class than we have, with a lot fewer people in the middle; and so forth.

[BunnyWabbit]

I think Ted Nugent should be president. He seems to be the only one who calls it like it is.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by BunnyWabbit

I think Ted Nugent should be president. He seems to be the only one who calls it like it is.

I approve of him in the abstract. But when I'm actually listening to the Nuge, I can't take more than about five minutes of him.

[BunnyWabbit]

If he did only one thing it would be solve the illegal immigration problem. Of taking 5 minutes of someone, that's me with Hitlary. She was on Letterman last night and I couldn't change the channel fast enough.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by The_Patriot

...You know who else wants the Dems to win? The terrorists around the globe.

Okay; I had to put the popcorn down long enough to say that's a load of horse apples, and it's time people stopped running that nonsense into the ground. It's been done to death; go find something else to scare the ignorant with.

I mean that in the kindest possible way, of course, with the utmost respect for your right to your own opinions...

[The_Patriot]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Okay; I had to put the popcorn down long enough to say that's a load of horse apples, and it's time people stopped running that nonsense into the ground. It's been done to death; go find something else to scare the ignorant with.

I mean that in the kindest possible way, of course, with the utmost respect for your right to your own opinions...

Are you kidding?

It's pretty common knowledge that terror leaders watch American politics very closely. We know this because of documents and communications they had on them when captured.

Bin Laden refered to the vote of the swing state of Ohio in the last Presidential election in a speech he gave. He threatened people in that state if they voted for Bush, along with the rest of the country.

Why is this information bunk?

It may be old, and it may have played well for the Republicans in the past. You could argue a lot of aspects of how it was used, when and why. You can probably even argue that Bush caused a lot more terrorists to crop up. But I don't think you can argue what I wrote--it came right from Bin Laden's two lips.

I don't want to scare anyone. I want this nation to be safe. I see two big threats to our existence (external): China and Islamofascists. The latter is more overt about it, they want to wipe us off the map. They state it very clearly. Don't you see it the same way? Are they lying about their intentions?

I want truth to prevail. What about what I wrote is not true? I want people to make up their own minds, but do it with relevant facts in mind. I am not trying to motivate anyone to voting a certain way. I have no illusions that I'd have such power in a forum such as this--people in here are pretty set in their thinking. I'm just discussing things online...just a friendly conversation.

With that, if you were running a terrorist camp or planning a bombing somewhere on the globe, who would you want in power? The party with a track record of hunting them down and killing them, or one that looks at terrorism as a law enforcement issue?

[tlarkin]

China is doing so well because the Chinese are an internal society. They care a lot less of what happens outside their country than most countries and especially us. It may have hurt some of their foreign trade, but their economy is finally catching up at a rapid rate. Citizens can now own private properly and each territory or providence has its own control over its own territory. Really, China is now a federalist government if you look at it. Shanghai is importing like 6,000 cars per a month. They have cities with millions of people being constructed at the moment. They have something like over 11 cities already with millions of people in them. Their infrastructure is being rebuilt from the ground up. Granted, it will still take some time for them to become a full global industrial power, but they are not far off at all.

If you look at history almost all of China's wars, revolutions, and acts of violence have stayed with in its own borders. Their isolationist philosophy has allowed them to focus on China. Where as we have our noses in everyone's business.

Obama, in my opinion is not that bad of a candidate and I think he would do an OK job as president. Definitely better than any current Republican running for office. McCain or Huckabee? No way in my mind. This forum (and no one take offense to this) reminds me of my father and politics. He is a life long republican and will always vote that way regardless of the candidates. The republican party could have the worst candidates in the world, and the democratic or libertarian could have some great ones and he would never vote for them. He even agrees with some other politicians on a lot of things, but his elitist republican tunnel vision keeps him loyal to one political party. Which is probably why I turned out to be a registered Independent, because I can't really grasp how you would want to limit yourself to that sort of bias.

Hillary, I don't like her because of how she has no dynamically changed her stance on major issues. To me she is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Also, I don't see why everyone loves to bash Billy Clinton, he did a lot for our economy, not to mention left us one of the biggest budget surpluses in the history of our country. That money could have gone to so many great things, and the current administration royally F'd that up. I am assuming it was solely because of the Brady bill.

[The_Patriot]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Also, I don't see why everyone loves to bash Billy Clinton, he did a lot for our economy, not to mention left us one of the biggest budget surpluses in the history of our country. That money could have gone to so many great things, and the current administration royally F'd that up.

I don't want to stir the pot, so I shouldn't even ask. But I will, and this is really, truly just a FRIENDLY question and exchange of ideas, I don't want to argue.

But you can you point to single action or actions that Clinton did to make that economy of "his" that people always talk about? Would you not agree that he was the recipient of an internet- and technology-driven boom that started before he came to office and prospered with little doing of his own? And that it burned out near the end of his term as we slipped into a recession, still under his watch? No generalities, what exactly did he do to create such a great economy? I hear that arguement a lot, and nobody can ever point out specifics, just generalizations.

Also, would you consider the unimpeded transfer of advanced technologies to China under his direction a good thing?

And, one more... Did you agree with how he got to that surplus (in large part by gutting military spending)?

Believe me, I'm no big fan of ANY politicians in Washington, I just couldn't resist asking those questions of you. You see, I see both sides as bad.

Okay, one more... Please don't blame all of the problems on Bush. I hear that time and time again. All those Dems in Congress opened the pocket books for these actions, and they continue to do so. They're just as "guilty" for what's been "F'd" up as Bush. A lot of them made the same arguements Bush did.

This is an add-on post.

Actually, don't worry about the above comments. I came to this web site to read and discuss guns and laws, etc. I keep getting sucked into political debates and it eats up too much time.

Don't worry about the questions, I'm going to limit what I read/write on this forum about politics from here on out. It rarely gets anywhere and is causing me too much stomach acid and not enough time with my kid...

[tlarkin]

I agree with you on some points, but let me say a few words. Yes, he was in a big technology boom. In the early 90s both Cisco and Microsoft took off, but at the same time the telecom corps were losing money. Technology also gets cheaper and cheaper and more available and if our economy weren't so jacked up at the moment you would see people spending even more money.

Hell, last year over 1 million iPhones were sold @ $500/unit. Laptop sales have surged, and now we are seeing 50% more laptops in our market each year. Consumers are still driving the market, the problem is our dollar is worth less now and the cost of everything keeps going up.

I think trading with China is a good thing. Establish a good foreign relationship with a large country who could very well become the next global industrial power.

I also am OK with gutting some of military spending, it is a huge problem with our budget. Half of our budget goes to paying our military budget debt off. We have no need to police the world. I am not trying to discredit the purpose of a military, I think it is sad and unfortunate we need one, but we do need one. We don't however need one to rule the world. From a tactical stand point it would be pretty much impossible for any nation's army or armies to invade and occupy the USA. We have too much land and too much a variety of climates. I don't really see a threat of anyone invading our country and taking it over. Plus if we ally with the right nations, our allied forces would cover this.

He passed an economic bill that cut government spending and taxes, which resulted in the surplus and the largest economic surge in our history. He also left office with a 63% approval rating, which hasn't been done since Truman left office. The republicans thought this would hurt our economy, but they never offered any proof. I see it as all the private military contracts the companies that the republicans were getting kick backs from were being compromised with military funding being cut.

[mym1a]

unfortunately the republicans are following suit with their democrat friends, it all appears to be the same!

[Rave]

Obama did say something of substance,now that I look back in retrospect.
He said in regard to people being able to afford health insuranc,"If we subsodize them enough they will be able to afford insurance."
Hmmm,this sounds familiar.

[bigbuddy21]

yes we are ready for a woman and a black man. i can think of alot of them. liz.dole, thomas seoul, condi. rice[you get both with her] just not hilary or obama.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I agree with you on some points, but let me say a few words. Yes, he was in a big technology boom. In the early 90s both Cisco and Microsoft took off, but at the same time the telecom corps were losing money. Technology also gets cheaper and cheaper and more available and if our economy weren't so jacked up at the moment you would see people spending even more money.

Hell, last year over 1 million iPhones were sold @ $500/unit. Laptop sales have surged, and now we are seeing 50% more laptops in our market each year. Consumers are still driving the market, the problem is our dollar is worth less now and the cost of everything keeps going up.

I think trading with China is a good thing. Establish a good foreign relationship with a large country who could very well become the next global industrial power.

I also am OK with gutting some of military spending, it is a huge problem with our budget. Half of our budget goes to paying our military budget debt off. We have no need to police the world. I am not trying to discredit the purpose of a military, I think it is sad and unfortunate we need one, but we do need one. We don't however need one to rule the world. From a tactical stand point it would be pretty much impossible for any nation's army or armies to invade and occupy the USA. We have too much land and too much a variety of climates. I don't really see a threat of anyone invading our country and taking it over. Plus if we ally with the right nations, our allied forces would cover this.

He passed an economic bill that cut government spending and taxes, which resulted in the surplus and the largest economic surge in our history. He also left office with a 63% approval rating, which hasn't been done since Truman left office. The republicans thought this would hurt our economy, but they never offered any proof. I see it as all the private military contracts the companies that the republicans were getting kick backs from were being compromised with military funding being cut.

Respectfully, sir, I disagree. This is NOT the time to cut our military forces, especially AS we are a net debtor nation and going to be one for quite some time. It's alot tougher to force someone to pay when they're strong. It's alot tougher to force global views on a strong nation. And there are still many very significant threats to the U. S. China's great to trade with, but they're not our friend militarily. Putin spelled backwards is KGB. He's selling some very good missiles to Iran. The worldwide threats have by no means gone away.

China, quite simply, is going through their industrial revolution like we did in the beginning to the middle of our last century. They didn't learn much from us regarding the long term health effects of pollution (or maybe don't care), but will in time. Mainland China, other than having a great capitalist economy, still has draconian political control. They ARE the next global industrial power. They're buying and stockpiling resources. They are accruing wealth (from us and others) and turning around and investing this in home and foreign interests, and their own military technologies. They work hard. They are building things. They are pragmatic. Unlike our current situation where we chase our tails alot here, they'll just do it -- they'll just build coal plants, (and, thankfully, nuclear reactors--glad someone's doing it) coal plants, refineries, and anything else they need. They'll be more than happy to dump mercury in the pearl river delta and not give it a second thought. Same as when their pollution fogs in their neighbors. Not talking innocous things like CO2 but real pollutants--SO2, NO2, Metals, Soot. Bad stuff. They can do this because they're militarily and economically strong. It may not be right, but they can do it nonetheless. And we're not balancing the trade--if you want a good indicator, the airplanes hauling freight going over to asia are alot lighter than the airplanes coming back.

We (as the US) will have to deal with this. We may have to do it to protect our own interests. This may get ugly at times, and may require not giving away the store in the name of globalization. Do you think either Hillary (remember Bill's ties to China ?) or Obama are competent ? I really don't.

Just my 2 cents worth, but this is no time for weak leadership.

[baldeagle48]

Better get use to the idea because one or the other will be president. Theres not much hope of Mcain winning. he'll just be a continuation of the Bush administration.He has no new ideas.Just my opinion.