US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (88 Viewers)

Who would you vote to be the next President of the United States?

  • John McCain

  • Barack Obama

  • undecided


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
God, I hate f*$%ing "TED". That's a failed discount airline spinoff, not an online media play.

It seems that most of the stuff posted on TED wants to be cerebral but yet consists of vacuous nothings. Like that 18-minute rant by Clifford Stoll. Talk about embarrassing.
Well I can't speak for "most" but some of the talks I've seen have been great.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Vinman

2013 Prediction Cup Champ
Jul 16, 2002
11,481
I'm not voting in this election...

I cannot vote for Obama after watching this video-

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america

the man has to be an idiot to believe that Russia, or any other threat to America, will dismantle their nuclear programs....but he is insistant that he will reduce ours , even to the point of getting rid of them altogether

I'm starting to wonder who's side this guy is really on
 

Vinman

2013 Prediction Cup Champ
Jul 16, 2002
11,481
and then I get this email....which really makes you wonder....


I AM confused!!!





LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT:

HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN, MUSLIM, BLACK - WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS
'AFRICAN FAMILY'

HIS MOTHER IS A KANSAN, ATHEIST, WHITE -

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS KANSAN, WHITE MOTHER
AND HIS WHITE GRANDPARENTS WHO RA ISED HIM?

HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER AND HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG
AND WENT BACK TO HIS FAMILY (WHOSE FAMILY ?) IN KENYA ?

HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM AND TOOK HIM TO JAKARTA WHERE HE
WAS SCHOOLED IN A MUSLIM SCHOOL.

HIS MOTHER RETURNED TO HAWAII AND HE WAS RAISED BY HIS WHITE KANSAN
GRANDPARENTS ? WHEN ?

HE LATER WENT TO THE BEST HIGH DOLLAR SCHOOLS, HOW?

HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT HE ACQUIRED THROUGH A DEAL
WITH A WEALTHY FUND RAISER.... HOW?

HE 'WORKED' AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO - HAS NEVER HELD A
PRODUCTIVE JOB.

THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POST, NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES

HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WHERE
HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE

HE IS PROUD OF HIS 'AFRICAN HERITAGE'

BUT IT SEEMS THAT HIS ONLY AFRICAN CONNECTION WAS THAT HIS AFRICAN FATHER
GOT A WHI TE GIRL PREGNANT AND DESERTED HER.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SPERM CARRIED A 'CULTURAL' GENE.

WHERE IS THE PRIDE IN HIS WHITE CULTURE?

HE GOES TO AN 'AFROCENTRIC' CHURCH THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND
BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLD'S PERCEIVED FAULTS AND THEN REPEATEDLY
COVERS UP FOR THE PASTOR AND THE CHURCH

HE CLAIMS THAT HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR, BUT HE WANTS US TO
BELIEVE THAT HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN, YEAH, RIGHT!!!

YEAH, I THINK I SEE HOW HE COULD BE A 'UNITER' AND BRING US TOGETHER.


I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT HE HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER
UNTIL AFTER THE 'ELECTION'



LIKE I SAID AT THE START, ' I AM CONFUSED !!!!'
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
I'm not voting in this election...

I cannot vote for Obama after watching this video-

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america

the man has to be an idiot to believe that Russia, or any other threat to America, will dismantle their nuclear programs....but he is insistant that he will reduce ours , even to the point of getting rid of them altogether

I'm starting to wonder who's side this guy is really on
No I idea what's wrong with trying to get other nations to cut down on its stash of nuclear weapons and take the ones in service off stand by. I don't really understand what is so terrible in doing that. But perhaps it's good to have nuclear weapons on stand by, you know, for the suspense of it all..
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
Well that's pretty much it. The truth of the Bush administration has been revealed. McClellan has written the whole Iraq war was just a chance to spread "democracy" in a pivotal country in the Middle East just for the benefit of our own interest, which the more intelligent people around the world already knew. Bush and his people wanted such a place in the Middle East that we could potentially either steal from or trade with, and that reason is without a doubt the crude oil factor. It's as clear as day. Iraq has potentially the largest reserves out of any nation.

So a nice thank you goes out to the people who voted for these fucking CUNTS. Thank you guys for murdering thousands of people because of your obvious subpar intellect. Assholes.
 

Marko

GhostDog
May 1, 2006
3,289
Do you think that something would be different if democrats were in charge at that time? Or better said, do you think that Obama or Hilary will withdraw US soldiers from Iraq?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
And even McClellan himself stated, "the 'Liberal Media' did not live up to it's name." What he means is that the media did not question the Bush administration as difficult as they should have in regards to going to War and even questioning Bush's ability.

I mean, this is case closed. The media is not as Liberal as conservatives might think and Bush was the worst President we have ever had. Which doesn't really say much for the people who elected him to a second term.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
Do you think that something would be different if democrats were in charge at that time? Or better said, do you think that Obama or Hilary will withdraw US soldiers from Iraq?
You have to understand, Marko. The people in charge of this Bush administration are oil barons. Bush with a petroleum conglomerate, Cheney the VP of an oil services company, and Rice on the board of Chevron. Not mention other "advisers" in this bullshit administration who had ties to oil related firms. This shit was all planned out... had to be.

Would the Democrats would have created as much of a mess as this? I really fucking doubt it. This whole Bush administration stinks to high heaven of oil ties and also CIA ties from the Cold War. Nothing is right here, and I'm sure Gore would have NEVER invaded Iraq because the Bush family faggots seemingly have a hard on for the place.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,514
I don't think the Democrats would have supported a major ratcheting of the war budget to run roughshod over Iraq and put us in a financial quagmire there. Democrats are much better at domestic financial quagmires.

The only thing keeping me from totally vilifying Bush is the incompetency/intent divide. Clearly, Bush had advisers who were out to invade Iraq since the mid 1990s -- and he could have used much better judgment in ignoring them. Basically making him a spineless wuss. But you have to take some responsibility for allowing the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, whom I consider evil incarnate, to drive national policy based on bad info, selling the U.S. public with a false bill of goods, and sticking it to them with 4,000+ dead Americans (never mind the innocent Iraqi casualties for a moment) and a multi-trillion-dollar budget sinkhole for it. And no one is held accountable for the royal clusterf*ck of the new millennium.

Half the reason for why food and gas prices are so ridiculously high in this country is because failed financial policy supporting this war is devaluating the American dollar on the world markets faster than England's hopes for another national team trophy. If congresspeople want to look like they're doing something for the "pain at the pump" of their mainstream American constituents, how about have the balls and tell us that they're partly responsible by voting to put our nation's finances in a sewer hole the size of Iraq??
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
I'm sorry, Enron. But Tucker Carlson is without a doubt a cunt and a moron.

"Crime in Detroit can be solved within an hour and a half with a surge."

:melayyanandmessi:

He clearly has no idea what goes on there and in other cities such as Philly or Baltimore. Tucker should shut the fuck up about these topics because clearly he doesn't have the background nor intellect to understand what the hell goes on in some of our own major cities.

FUCK YOU TUCKER.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
Half the reason for why food and gas prices are so ridiculously high in this country is because failed financial policy supporting this war is devaluating the American dollar on the world markets faster than England's hopes for another national team trophy. If congresspeople want to look like they're doing something for the "pain at the pump" of their mainstream American constituents, how about have the balls and tell us that they're partly responsible by voting to put our nation's finances in a sewer hole the size of Iraq??
Absolutely. But it also has to do with our influence in the the Middle East, which causes crude prices to naturally increase because of mere turmoil. China's and India's growing economy are one thing, but causing turmoil in the Middle East also naturally increases prices because people are blowing up reserves and pipelines every single day.
 

Marko

GhostDog
May 1, 2006
3,289
You have to understand, Marko. The people in charge of this Bush administration are oil barons. Bush with a petroleum conglomerate, Cheney the VP of an oil services company, and Rice on the board of Chevron. Not mention other "advisers" in this bullshit administration who had ties to oil related firms. This shit was all planned out... had to be.

Would the Democrats would have created as much of a mess as this? I really fucking doubt it. This whole Bush administration stinks to high heaven of oil ties and also CIA ties from the Cold War. Nothing is right here, and I'm sure Gore would have NEVER invaded Iraq because the Bush family faggots seemingly have a hard on for the place.
Andy, I understand that, and I'm not defending that fucking peasant from Arkansas, or whatever he's from, administration. All I wanted to say is that presidential elections in the US don't decide the fate of the world because, like thread name say, US industry dictates US foreign policy, it doesn't matter who's in charge. These are much more important to you, Americans, because of taxes.
You know where am I from, and you probably know what was happening here in nineties, to be more precise in '99. Ok, Serbs did some shit, they bombed us, luckily they very precise. What was the reason? Ethnic cleansing, period. Nobody asked is it really ethnic cleansing. Nowadays everybody know what was reason of invasion to Iraq. What changed? Was media closed, or more closed, back in nineties. Or maybe democrats had more style. I remember when that shit in Iraq restarted there was protest all around the world (there was more than 1000000 people in London), medias was full of critics, and I was wondering what happened because I couldn't believed that they were defending that dictator Sadam! And by the way, Milošević was little child compared to Sadam.

Forgive me if my English wasn't good.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,703
Andy, I understand that, and I'm not defending that fucking peasant from Arkansas, or whatever he's from, administration. All I wanted to say is that presidential elections in the US don't decide the fate of the world because, like thread name say, US industry dictates US foreign policy, it doesn't matter who's in charge. These are much more important to you, Americans, because of taxes.
You know where am I from, and you probably know what was happening here in nineties, to be more precise in '99. Ok, Serbs did some shit, they bombed us, luckily they very precise. What was the reason? Ethnic cleansing, period. Nobody asked is it really ethnic cleansing. Nowadays everybody know what was reason of invasion to Iraq. What changed? Was media closed, or more closed, back in nineties. Or maybe democrats had more style. I remember when that shit in Iraq restarted there was protest all around the world (there was more than 1000000 people in London), medias was full of critics, and I was wondering what happened because I couldn't believed that they were defending that dictator Sadam! And by the way, Milošević was little child compared to Sadam.

Forgive me if my English wasn't good.
Your English was fine.

But you're right... much of our foreign policy relies upon corporate influence. However, I have got to say it is much worse when the Republicans are in office. Even though our response to the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia was late during Clinton's time, I think that situation is much different than just invading random nations just for natural resources. That is what Bush has done in Iraq, and also probably why we have an independent Kosova now... just because governments want to exploit their natural resources without having to deal with the Russian-influenced Serbia. That's just the way it is unfortunately.

But looking at the big picture, the Democrats in the past 30 years are always more concerned with our own infrastructure and spending on a national level. While corporations do influence the government through lobbyists, they're much more "appeased" by the people on the right, like Reagan with NAFTA and Bush with... well, pretty much everything that cunt and his controlling Cheney have done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 88)