Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who are you voting for?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Poll Question: Who are you voting for in the primaries
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
17 [43.59%]
6 [15.38%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [20.51%]
3 [7.69%]
3 [7.69%]
2 [5.13%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who are you voting for?
    Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 17:25
Obama Obama Obama Obama


McCain is too war crazy. One would think that he would be good in foreign affairs, yet he is running around talking about starting wars and continuing wars for 100 years.

If he had any real idea about the state of the U.S. military and how much money the government has in the coffers, he would keep his mouth shut.

This is the part that disturbs me the most about McCain: he seems out of touch with reality in the area that should be his strongest topic.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 18:39
Originally posted by Parnell

I liked Mc Cain (Wouldn't have voted for him in a million years tho) until he sang 'bomb bomb bomb Iran'. He's a man of principle, with a legendary backstory, but I don't think he'd do much to restore the American Image across the world, unlike Obama.


Is a man of principle in personal life perhaps, in political though he caves in to the party over his beliefs, that could be seen with Bush; he would announce a certain set of beliefs before he lost the primaries, after Bush got elected he would not criticize him. Aside from being a war-hawk he's a die hard party follower, which is not what we need right now. 100 Years in Iraq, bomb the crap out of anyone, we are not leaving... just because he has had personal experiences as a POW illogically wanting to stay in Iraq a 100 years makes no sense to me.


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 18:43
Originally posted by hugoestr

Obama Obama Obama Obama


McCain is too war crazy. One would think that he would be good in foreign affairs, yet he is running around talking about starting wars and continuing wars for 100 years.

If he had any real idea about the state of the U.S. military and how much money the government has in the coffers, he would keep his mouth shut.

This is the part that disturbs me the most about McCain: he seems out of touch with reality in the area that should be his strongest topic.


Out of touch with reality and common sense.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 19:04

McCain is too war crazy. One would think that he would be good in foreign affairs, yet he is running around talking about starting wars and continuing wars for 100 years.


That's strange I've never heard about McCain starting wars, could you give an example.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 19:24
Originally posted by JanusRook


McCain is too war crazy. One would think that he would be good in foreign affairs, yet he is running around talking about starting wars and continuing wars for 100 years.


That's strange I've never heard about McCain starting wars, could you give an example.


He definetly has no qualms about coninuing it for another 4 generations...

12/18/2007Iraq Withdrawal AmendmentN

9/19/2007Time Between Troop DeploymentsN

07/18/2007Iraq Troop ReductionN

10/11/2002Use of Military Force Against IraqY

09/14/2001Military Force Authorization resolutionY



Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 22:18
Originally posted by hugoestr

Obama Obama Obama Obama


McCain is too war crazy. One would think that he would be good in foreign affairs, yet he is running around talking about starting wars and continuing wars for 100 years.

If he had any real idea about the state of the U.S. military and how much money the government has in the coffers, he would keep his mouth shut.

This is the part that disturbs me the most about McCain: he seems out of touch with reality in the area that should be his strongest topic.
 
Whats funny is that Bush himself has even admitted to being unimpressed by McCain.


Edited by Penelope - 19-Feb-2008 at 22:19
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 12:39
Mc Cain is a maverick and not afraid to go against the party from time to time (Illegal immigration, campaign finance etc.) One of his campaign managers let out a bloop in 2000 that (He hates those religious types) Good enough for me!
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 19:03


He definetly has no qualms about coninuing it for another 4 generations...


Nor do I, just because we should not have started something, doesn't mean we should not finish it.

I liked Mc Cain (Wouldn't have voted for him in a million years tho) until he sang 'bomb bomb bomb Iran'.


He was asked what he would do in a situation where Iran attacked the US or US allies, you would rather have a leader that didn't defend his nation or allies? Not necessarily directed at you Parnell.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 19:42
"More Wars" McCain in his own words

"I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars," said McCain at a campaign stop last month. "We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB21Ak05.html
Yet our military says it is overextended


You see, his big campaign promise is more war.

Edited by hugoestr - 20-Feb-2008 at 19:43
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 19:47
Originally posted by Parnell

Mc Cain is a maverick and not afraid to go against the party from time to time (Illegal immigration, campaign finance etc.) One of his campaign managers let out a bloop in 2000 that (He hates those religious types) Good enough for me!


He is not the McCain of 2000. He has flipped flopped hard on key issues.

He flipped flopped on immigration.
He flipped flopped on torture.
He flipped flopped on religious types.

And he frequently talks against the party line only to vote along it. Shameful.

And he talks about having more wars with no regard to the realities of our military.

Hey, I liked the guy. I voted for him in the California Primaries in 2000.

He is a shadow of his former self. Sad.

Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 22:17
I agree with everything Hugestr said, I don't even have to make a real post! He even it the McCain issues, I used to like him in 2000, then he started hanging out with the Evangelicals.
But Obama is the man! He's got my vote.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 23:07
Hello Hugoestr and other Obama supporters,
 
I have a question. What if Mr. Obama were too end up dissappointing everyone by continuing the fight against the nihlistic ideology of terrorism by feeling the regretful need of expanding it even futher then what our current President has done so far? Granted, i believe the press and countless op-ed articles, will be much more forgiving and kind too him then our current President. Still, the extremely high possibilities of such actions are there for him to do so.
 
The majority of people on this earth do not want more war, including us here in the US. But, what we want is not neccessarily what some others want for the rest of us. I wish too make a prediction, that if Mr. Obama is elected, the world will probably like him for longer time then was ever granted Mr. Bush? But, to those fighting us and our allies and the rest of the world whether they want to be involved or not... there wil be no change in their wish of destruction and death of innocents just too secure their own ends. 
 
Just think about it and let me know what you all think?
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 23:14
What do we care about how others think? Are we to pussyfoot around naively prancing about our innocence? We will always fight our enemies. However, creating new ones is not wise policy. Never was. Obama will have a clean slate to stake his claim if elected. He could still tango with terrorists and not create animosity by falsifying information or immorally kill thousands for oil.

Edited by Seko - 20-Feb-2008 at 23:15
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 23:49
Originally posted by Seko

Obama will have a clean slate to stake his claim if elected. He could still tango with terrorists and not create animosity by falsifying information or immorally kill thousands for oil.
 
Hello Seko.
 
I agree. I feel no animosity toward any politican and have never felt the need too attack or slander them for the benefit of the person i support. That doesn't mean i trust them all implicitly!
 
 However, concerning the oil issue, how does anyone know that is the prime motivator of all the actions taken by the Bush administration; Besides what is said in op-eds within the press and comments by the administration that are printed without their proper context provided for public dissemination? I believe people know all the wrong things they need to know about President Bush? I would even say that for Obama, Clinton, McCain or whoever is in the white house, not just because they happen to be the President and commander and chief, but.... also because of my belief in fair play for all, and what i see as false missinterpretations and or character assassinations by those with political axes too grind! It's not a bug within the US that makes this so... it's just a natural feature of how things work for and against politicans within the US. Is it fair too any occupant in the oval office, or those running for elections? No it's certainly not! Does it work? Yes... and very highly effective,  but also very dishonest too, and not only to the country, but to our allies and countries we have relations with! Am i sick of this type of childish crap? YES.... I am, and have been for decades now! This countries biggest problem is our own 24/7 political biases. I mean their fine to have come the election season, but once it's over, we are after all is said and done... Americans. That's what i believe!
 
 
Anyways, back to the issue of oil,  i do admit, that it is obviously a convenient excuse too accuse the US over, but to attribute to it... as our only and most primary of concerns for the region, is a bit short-sighted. Oil is a big issue for the world, but as of current.... it ihas only a small bit part too play, in considerations of the over all big picture, in what i think is actually taking place around the world!
 
Best regard to you,
 
Panther
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 01:04
Politics aside any man should be judged for their actions. By making the bold statement that I did about oil takes in his past enterprises as a citizen and behavior as President. Am I certain that this is the sole reason for his foreign policy in Iraq? Of course not since I'm not privy to that kind of documentation. So I judge President Bush on his constant use of such misnomers as "Iraq being a threat". "Iraq having weapons of Mass Destruction". Terrorists partnering up with Iraq and so on. When at the end of the day we have soldiers doing unprecedented repetitive terms of duty with an enemy that has grown larger all while we secured as many oil facilities from day one of our victory. Is this line of thought an excuse or common sense? Who knows? But we sure can guess. We don't even need third party information that may have political agendas that twist the truth. The other possibilities for the invasion are revenge for daddy plus doing Israel and Saudi Arabia's dirty work. Maybe they are part of the equation too. Then I hear things like securing oil contracts with the puppet Iraqi regime for the next 20 years; or instigating a fight with Iran. So I ask myself who profits? What do we get in the long run? Why such bad planning? What is a Neo-con? Why jump from Afghanistan to Iraq without securing the former? If we are really concerned with terrorists then what was wrong with Saddam keeping them at bay? The big picture is that our economy is based on our huge needs. We fail if we do not back our currency. We jump at the chance that assumingly gives us more financial security (taking oil fields) while millions of jobs are lost in this country to downsizing (we are not very competitive). We outsource (cheap foreign labor) then say NAFTA is good for you; all while Exxon reaped in record profits.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 01:46

...continuation.

Now let's look at an alternate reality. One where everything we were spoon fed with after 9-11 is true. When the mass media were cheerleaders of the current administration. You surely remember those days don't you; where speaking one's mind was taboo and we were led to believe the white house press conferences (before reporters were heavily scrutinized to tow the party line as they are now) were gospel truth. In that day and age we believed that Iraq was the center of all evil (well one out of three ain't bad - axis of evil). We were told that the center of terror somehow transferred from the tunnels of Tora Bora to the Palaces of Baghdad. So we armed our mentalities and looked for another fight. We blamed the UN for dragging their feet while we loudly chanted "Freedom Fries" in our underwear (not really, sounds funny though). The Dixie Chicks were sent to the exile of our minds and every darn eastern looking American had to watch what they said in public. Country music and Nascar fans became patriotic torch bearers of our pride. Our leaders fanned fear into our hearts. But we felt safe because they built a massive Coalition of the Willing. So we headed out to topple a few statues and toss a few dark bags over Fatima while her husband was thrown into Abu Ghraib. We searched for them there Weapons of Masssssivvve dessstruction. Found none. Hanged one of the many Saddam look-a-likes. Probably got the real one too for having too many bad habbits (smoking underground will do that to ya). Our miltary gets ambushed. Start up corporations like the al-Mahdi army and Al-qaeida chronies popped up like weeds. The President kept wanting more money for the war machine. We gave it to him to this very day. This all happened while nothing about oil was mentioned in the major tv channels other than a Cheney connection with Haliburton.
 
 
Fast forward to the present. Now I ask you which reality do you like better? The first or second post? Remember, you were fed to gobble the second one. Told to bend over and say, "Thank You Sir may I have another"!
 
She was low down and trifling
And she was cold and mean
Kind of evil make me want to Grab my sub machine
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone.
 
,regards and nothing personal.


Edited by Seko - 21-Feb-2008 at 01:56
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 02:23
I'm all about Obama. An Obama vs. McCain election would be awesome. If Hilary gets the Dem nomination then I am voting McCain (probably).
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 02:39
At the very least, Obama will shift the perception towards America to a more positive one than it is at the minute, but depending mainly on his foreign policy (most important for non-Americans) only time will tell how long this will last. I think that America needs a change like Obama, even if he doesn't leave a flawless or brilliant legacy. It's that old mantra, change change change..
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 02:59
Originally posted by hugoestr

"More Wars" McCain in his own words

"I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars," said McCain at a campaign stop last month. "We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB21Ak05.html
Yet our military says it is overextended


You see, his big campaign promise is more war.
 
"His big campaign promise"? That's just silly, hugo. LOL He's simply being realistic about the world we live in, not promising to start more wars. Surely you don't think that people will magically stop fighting after 2008 -- although the world would undoubtedly be a better place if they did. So long as sin is in the world, there will be strife.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 05:17
Originally posted by Seko

By making the bold statement that I did about oil takes in his past enterprises as a citizen and behavior as President.
 
The problem here is, should i judge Mr. Obama solely by his middle name of "Hussein", as well as his past for studying in Maylasia, as being against everyone's common interests and all that we stand for? Of course i could do that very thing, by holding it against him. But that is not me. People are trying to do just that very thing, but i prefer letting his character speak for itself, rather than letting slanderous lies guide my reasoning!
 
Am I certain that this is the sole reason for his foreign policy in Iraq? Of course not since I'm not privy to that kind of documentation. So I judge President Bush on his constant use of such misnomers as "Iraq being a threat". "Iraq having weapons of Mass Destruction". Terrorists partnering up with Iraq and so on.
 
Well Seko, what did we have to go on before President Bush's administration, or Bill Clinton's administration and even back to George the first? All three plus... ours and most other intelligence agencies around the world, viewed the man as a threat throughout the 90's and even up to the day of the very invasion itself (I'm not saying everybody believed it, just a majority did)! In an alternate universe, i do believe that "if"... 9-11 had never had happened, we wouldn't be in Iraq now (Nor even Afghanistan), President Bush would have still had a 50/50 chance of re-election three and half years later in 2004 (Based on how well he had done in the previous four years), we would still be fighting terrorists covertly, we would still be disliked and hated by billions around the world and so on, and so forth.... which means it has very little to do with any particular candidate! Bush is just the scapegoat for the world's frustration toward's us! What i am also saying, is too just look at the past thirteen years of the confrontation and the high cost of containment that had gone on involving the US and it's allies vs. Saddam's Iraq? Plus, the billions spent containing the guy after countless UN resolutions over the past thirteen years would have been wasted... and for what?
 
Of course, i'm also aware of many people blaming the US solely for arming Iraq with any capabilities for violence and destruction on a wide scale! That's also not taking into account that more equipment were made easily available too Saddam's government by the oil for food scandal within the UN and from certain countries and going against the UN resolutions, along with Saddam getting alot of help from one particular country in the field of questionable nuclear technology! Heck... let's not even discuss the armed camp the middle east is today!
 
When at the end of the day we have soldiers doing unprecedented repetitive terms of duty with an enemy that has grown larger all while we secured as many oil facilities from day one of our victory. Is this line of thought an excuse or common sense? Who knows? But we sure can guess.
 
That is very unfortunate for our soldiers and why i think we as a country we need to rally around them and help them as much as possible. Securing the oil facilities being an excuse or common sense? Actually, it was one of many.... extremely sloppy planning once Saddam was disposed of!
 
We don't even need third party information that may have political agendas that twist the truth. The other possibilities for the invasion are revenge for daddy plus doing Israel and Saudi Arabia's dirty work. Maybe they are part of the equation too.
 
Sometimes the truth is a whole lot more boring then the millions of conspiracies floating around out there!
 
Then I hear things like securing oil contracts with the puppet Iraqi regime for the next 20 years; or instigating a fight with Iran. So I ask myself who profits? What do we get in the long run? Why such bad planning? What is a Neo-con? Why jump from Afghanistan to Iraq without securing the former? If we are really concerned with terrorists then what was wrong with Saddam keeping them at bay? The big picture is that our economy is based on our huge needs. We fail if we do not back our currency. We jump at the chance that assumingly gives us more financial security (taking oil fields) while millions of jobs are lost in this country to downsizing (we are not very competitive). We outsource (cheap foreign labor) then say NAFTA is good for you; all while Exxon reaped in record profits.
 
I see all your questions and i wish i could answer you with what i think. But, i would come off sounding like a know-it-all (As if... i already don't sound like one already? Embarrassed ), instead of it sounding like it is just my opinion.
 
Panther
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.