Clinton and Obama

[Laerazi]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

You honestly think Bush expected it to turn out like it did?

No; I also didn't expect us to stay in Iraq for as long as we have, given the outcome of our involvement (something Bush has a say in). At some point, you have to realize that we're not effective and pull out; instead of sacrificing even more money and lives for little progress.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Laerazi

It's a non-issue for me, regardless; Hillary wants to end the war as does Obama. I'm not expecting the next president to be flawless, nor do I expect that every decision they make to be. I would, however, like a President that can adapt to a situation if mistakes are made (unlike Bush). Both Obama and Hillary seem capable for this position.

That said, I'm not completely biased towards one candidate or the other; both Hillary and Obama have their pros and cons, and I think it's stupid to nitpick either one of them to death, rather than taking in everything as a whole.



You honestly think the people that allowed Bush to enter the war expected it to turn out like it did?

That is not the issue. The issue is that Hillary is saying she has more experience than Obama and that is why you should vote for her. Obama counters this with the fact that Hillary made a major mistake in judgement given her experience. He is making the same argument Bill Clinton made in 1992 for his Presidential bid when he ran against a Candidate with more time in Washington.

The war is here and that is now water under the bridge. The issue is judgement based on Hillary's past experience. Hillary is just George Bush in a dress. They will have the same big name companies and lobbyists backing them.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Laerazi

No; I also didn't expect us to stay in Iraq for as long as we have, given the outcome of our involvement (something Bush has a say in). At some point, you have to realize that we're not effective and pull out; instead of sacrificing even more money and lives for little progress.

How exactly do you come to this expert opinion on the war? Every god damn day we have someone posting about the epic failure of the war, othe fact that we're not effective. Effective at doing what? Did we not achieve our military objectives? Are we not making progress towards the greater political objectives? I'm anti-war as they come, but I don't get this type of viewpoint at all, it's just not based in reality.

[Astrocreep]

Its really foolish to think that a vote for Hillary will mean a vote for Bill. first of all Hillary if anything is a willful bitch, she will do what SHE wants to do and god help anyone who stands in her way. If Hilldog becomes queen of the US, there would be no co presidency and i dont think Bill even wants that job anymore. im sure he will be too busy having fun fucking young girls like he did before and now there wont be any possibility of an impeachment to stop him.

[chaos]

If you think that Hillary wouldn't use Bill as a political tool then you are very naive.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by chaos

If you think that Hillary wouldn't use Bill as a political tool then you are very naive.

Of that i have no doubt, she will send him from place to place for whatever reason but he will have no input into what SHE does.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

Of that i have no doubt, she will send him from place to place for whatever reason but he will have no input into what SHE does.

Well he has to play ball in order for that to happen. I imagine a very give and take relationship, just like they had when he got elected, until he fucks up and oversteps, like she did, then he will get sent off to work with kids or something.

[Araxen]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

Its really foolish to think that a vote for Hillary will mean a vote for Bill. first of all Hillary if anything is a willful bitch, she will do what SHE wants to do and god help anyone who stands in her way. If Hilldog becomes queen of the US, there would be no co presidency and i dont think Bill even wants that job anymore. im sure he will be too busy having fun fucking young girls like he did before and now there wont be any possibility of an impeachment to stop him.

You could have fooled me the way she was touting the 90's. The 90's was ALL about Bill. Hillary had very little to do with what Bill did in office. It was very clear last night with the way she was touting about how good the 90's were and such is that she's trying to ride Bill into the whitehouse, and that Bill and her = 90's all over again minus the impeachment. She can't out charisma her own husband let alone Barack Obama. Heck, when it's all said and done it may prove that Bill can't out charisma Obama to the whitehouse. Hllary would not win the nomination on her own. She needs Bill otherwise this whole process would be over now and it would be Obama vs McCain till November.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by chaos

Well he has to play ball in order for that to happen. I imagine a very give and take relationship, just like they had when he got elected, until he fucks up and oversteps, like she did, then he will get sent off to work with kids or something.

I was expecting something different when you said he was gonna fuck up.

[Laerazi]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

That is not the issue. The issue is that Hillary is saying she has more experience than Obama and that is why you should vote for her. Obama counters this with the fact that Hillary made a major mistake in judgement given her experience. He is making the same argument Bill Clinton made in 1992 for his Presidential bid when he ran against a Candidate with more time in Washington.

The war is here and that is now water under the bridge. The issue is judgement based on Hillary's past experience. Hillary is just George Bush in a dress. They will have the same big name companies and lobbyists backing them.

If we're going to make broad generalizations about the success of a candidates future presidency based on situations in their past, I would think Obama's inexperience is more worrisome than Hillary's mistake. Making misjudgments is human, and I suppose if you want to see Hillary as a snake in the grass then that's your call. I don't have reason to think she's morally corrupt or not capable of presidency. I know many disagree; that's fine. I think I know what to expect if Hillary becomes President... with Obama, however, things aren't as certain. He very well may end up being the best thing for America, but there's also the chance that he may not. I think Obama is a riskier vote.

As I've said, though; I'd be happy if either of them ended up being President over McCain.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Laerazi

I think Obama is a riskier vote.

What's the basis here?

[Laerazi]

Lack of experience, mainly; if Obama was an old, ugly white man with no charisma would you still elect him for presidency? I understand the desire for a smooth-talking president, but I think some people are being blind-sided by it. Hillary may not have the charisma that her husband did, but she has experience.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by chaos

How exactly do you come to this expert opinion on the war? Every god damn day we have someone posting about the epic failure of the war, othe fact that we're not effective. Effective at doing what? Did we not achieve our military objectives? Are we not making progress towards the greater political objectives? I'm anti-war as they come, but I don't get this type of viewpoint at all, it's just not based in reality.

I think a lot of republican's won't be satisfied until Osama Bin Laden is proven right. This is from 2004, Osama Bin Laden states his goal is to bankrupt us like they did the Soviet Union in afghanistan.

CNN.com - Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. - Nov 1, 2004

It started in 9/11 with a few thousand towel heads in caves versus us and after over a trillion dollars they're still winning imo. For everyone one we kill like 3-4 seem to emerge.

I don't care what they call the situation, winning or not we should GTFO. Just say that Iraq has reached an acceptable level of violence (thanks Bush for the quote) and leave.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Laerazi

Lack of experience, mainly; if Obama was an old, ugly white man with no charisma would you still elect him for presidency? I understand the desire for a smooth-talking president, but I think some people are being blind-sided by it. Hillary may not have the charisma that her husband did, but she has experience.

Charisma is a very important characteristic for president of the United States. Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and JFK had major charisma. I am not saying Obama is just an empty suit as his education, books, and speeches alone prove he is intelligent. You make it sound like he is Ryan Seacrest or something.

He is much like Bill Clinton in 1992. Little experience and very smart. If only experience matters, John McCain would walk away with this election and Joe Biden would be the Democratic front runner. As a matter of fact we could just take the oldest guy from the Congress and make him president.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Kaio

I think a lot of republican's won't be satisfied until Osama Bin Laden is proven right. This is from 2004, Osama Bin Laden states his goal is to bankrupt us like they did the Soviet Union in afghanistan.

CNN.com - Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. - Nov 1, 2004

It started in 9/11 with a few thousand towel heads in caves versus us and after over a trillion dollars they're still winning imo. For everyone one we kill like 3-4 seem to emerge.

I don't care what they call the situation, winning or not we should GTFO. Just say that Iraq has reached an acceptable level of violence (thanks Bush for the quote) and leave.

I was talking with a couple of the soliders up here at work today about this, and you get all kinds from all spectrums. A point was brought up by a MSG I work with who said that the military has achieved their objectives and it is our State Dept and this administration who have failed. The military missions consisted of 2 goals going in, 1 was to neutralize the army and Sadaam, 2 was to ssecure the WMDs. 1 was accomplished in 5 days. 2 was found to be unnecessary, as they don't really exist. Then Saddam was caught. Now what you have is the military, having accomplished the war related goals, acting as a makeshift police force. There are obvious problems with this, but it is teh State Dept and the administration who are responsible for teh political failures which are resulting in civil war (to degrees) in Iraq. That is something I can basically agree with. They don't want to fight us in Iraq, they are fighting each other and we are getting in the way.

We need, as (hopefully) responsible citizens, to get past the hype and focus on what is real in this situation. You say "for every one we kill 3-4 replace him" and you have no numbers, no proof. Violence on the whole has been down in Iraq for something like 6 months. Regardless, you're equating Iraq and 9/11, which is good for both Bush and Osama, but not reality. Leave Iraq today and we still have AQ, Afghanistan, Osama, Taliban, all of that shit.

What is real about this situation and what is not real is the question.