Presidential Prediction

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:59 pm

spot;972823 wrote: Pardon my raised eyebrow but wasn't John McCain "flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi" when he was captured? I seem to remember two and a half million Vietnamese were killed by America's self-interested ideological involvement in Indochina and most of them were civilians. That's pretty shoddy credentials in my eyes. Frankly Spot, i don't particually care what you think of John McCain. Reagan made crap films-- so what? He was awesome & actually inspired me as a kid

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:03 pm

Hoss;973061 wrote: This is an interesting discussion I see points on both sides. But If I were in a country being invaded by either China or The USA, I'd surrender to the US but I'd fight to the death against China. If I were an Iraqi right now, I’d give up to the US not Iran or a terror group. I’d have been one of those joining the police force to help my people recover and develop a new nation. Exactly. It's what these candidates can do for the future, not their past. I am slightly torn now i have been googling Biden, Obama's running mate. Glad it's your choice, i wouldn't know where to go now.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:42 pm

spot;973043 wrote: If you check your history book the South Koreans were within an ace of losing before the US moved in large numbers of troops to shore them up. The resolution I was talking about was a win by the other side in the civil war, not the US-sponsored South. I wouldn't for a minute try and justify wrong doings on behalf of anyone or any government...My emphasis is more so possible outcomes to given circumstances ultimately ending up with minimal casualties...For the sake of my point I'll speak hypothetically...Upon any invading army infiltrating any given country, from which the end result being a victory for those to whom have invaded said country, giving credence to a stable economy, exercised citizen freedom, and prosperous health why would anyone fight against that?...Even without implying anything would you or would you not fight against that army?...

spot;973043 wrote:

The condition of North Korea since the stalemate is different to the condition of Korea before the civil war broke out. The fact that it's deteriorated over the years is a consequence of Korea being divided. Had there been no US military intervention the country wouldn't have been divided and the whole of Korea would have progressed differently. North Korea's state-controlled economy struggled throughout the 1990s, primarily due to the loss of strategic trade arrangements with the USSR and strained relations with China following China's normalization with South Korea in 1992. In addition, North Korea experienced record-breaking floods (1995 and 1996) followed by several years of equally severe drought beginning in 1997. This, compounded with only 18 percent arable land and an inability to import the goods necessary to sustain industry, led to an immense famine and left North Korea in economic shambles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il

Lets not get overzealous...

North Korean government officials known to be involved in WMD efforts are banned from traveling to member states. It also includes a North Korean ban on "luxury goods."

The ban appeared to be directed at North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, who has a long, documented record of living a life of luxury while his people battled against a national famine. On Friday Bolton said, "The North Korean population's been losing average height and weight over the years, and maybe this will be a little diet for Kim Jong Il."

South Korea's ambassador to the United Nations welcomed the resolution, saying it had his government's full support.

Choi Young-Jian urged North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program and "return immediately to the six-party talks without any preconditions."

South Korea, the United States and four other nations have been trying to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html

Do you like kim jong il Spot?...Do you honestly think this is a man of honorable leadership?...I am sincerely asking...

spot;973043 wrote:

Wherever it went it couldn't have ended up with a rogue-state axis-of-evil anti-US mentality that the stalemate has generated in the North. The US creates its own enemies every time it invades. That's because the US needs enemies in order to justify the crippling cost of its armed forces. Other nations prefer health care and social safety nets, America prefers to have enemies and the occasional shot at world domination.

In 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung implemented the "Sunshine policy" (햇볕 정책, Haetpyŏt chŏngch'aek) to improve North-South relations and to allow South Korean companies to start projects in the North. Kim Jong-il announced plans to import and develop new technologies to develop North Korea's fledgling software industry. As a result of the new policy, the Kaesong Industrial Park was constructed in 2003 just north of the inter-Korean border, with the planned participation of 250 South Korean companies, employing 100,000 North Koreans, by 2007. However, by March 2007, the Park contained only 21 companies - employing 12,000 North Korean workers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il

Yes let's wait over 40 years before we allow relations to improve and economies to flourish...After all South Korea would have been theirs right?...Theirs for the taking...I mean it's only right to prevent freedom of peoples' rights in the market as well as caging them and preventing them from seeing family...

President Bush described the U.N. action as a "swift and tough" message that the world is "united in our determination to see to it that the Korean Peninsula is nuclear-weapons free."

He said North Korea has an opportunity for "a better way forward" and promised help to the impoverished country if it verifiably ends its nuclear weapons program. North Korean ambassador to the United Nations Pak Gil Yon said Pyongyang "totally rejects the unjustifiable resolution."

"If the United States increases pressure upon [North Korea] persistently, [it] will continue to take physical countermeasures considering it as a declaration of war," Pak, said.

After Pak spoke, he walked out of the chamber. That prompted John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador, to point to Pak's empty chair and denounce him.

Bolton said the 15-0 vote sent a "clear and strong message" to North Korea, whose claimed nuclear test on Monday poses "one of the gravest threats to peace and security" the council has ever confronted. How is it that North Korea feels having Nuclear weapons is pertinent?...Do they honestly believe that the US doesn't have the capabilities of completely overtaking them and having nuclear weapons, as few as they could possibly make within the next 5 years, would deter that?...Exactly how is it that North Korea feels threatened?...

kim Jong il is a joke.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:06 pm

Kim Jong Il is a movie fanatic, and is said to hav a collection of over 20,000 films. In 1978, in order to advance the North Korean film industry, he ordered North Korean agents to abduct the famous South Korean movie director Shin Sang Ok and his ex-wife, actress Che Eun Hui, and kept them for eight years while making them produce propaganda films. During that time, the two became very well acquainted with Kim Jong Il, and after escaping in 1986, they wrote a book exposing his decadent lifestyle. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ong-il.htm

:yh_clap...Now there's a guy a united Korea wants to lead their country...:yh_clap...Bravo "Mr. Kim Jong-il" Bravo...:yh_clap...

*Whistles*...:yh_clap...:yh_clap...

*Whistles*

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:17 pm

spot;973043 wrote: The resolution I was talking about was a win by the other side in the civil war, not the US-sponsored South.

Yes but you've said that a united Korea would be better than a "US-sponsored South"...If it were obvious and that were true all one need do is look at which economy and which lifestyles are better...

We'll put it to a vote...

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:15 pm

Ok folks. Who watched McCain tonight and what did you really think about his platform and speech?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:18 pm

John McCain's speech made me cry -:-1 wow

didn't see that one coming...

Great speech's from all - I'm a pendiulum - sway - sway - sway

Patsy

cool podium lift

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:22 pm

As for myself, I thought it was interesting but........he is suddenly talking about change?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:58 pm

McCain gave an outstanding speech and it reeked of sincerity.:guitarist

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Great speech. He got me with how he came to put his country before himself. I had never thought of his POW experience being a turning point for him that way. He is real...I wasn't sure of that before.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:09 pm

Do you think I'm being weird here. But his background on the stage matched his wife's dress from the night before?

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:20 pm

qsducks;973255 wrote: Do you think I'm being weird here. But his background on the stage matched his wife's dress from the night before?

It's a conspiracy:-5 I knew something like this would happen.:wah:

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:27 pm

Clint;973259 wrote: It's a conspiracy:-5 I knew something like this would happen.:wah:

:wah::wah: Other than that, I thought he was boring compared to Obama, Biden and his sidekick, Sarah.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:35 pm

qsducks;973261 wrote: :wah::wah: Other than that, I thought he was boring compared to Obama, Biden and his sidekick, Sarah.

Biden may get kicked from the side by a Sarah.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:38 pm

Well, he better get his b*lls up and kick her unexperienced ass in a bind.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:59 pm

She'll mess up his hair...that'll fix him.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:01 pm

At least he won't have to complain about a $500 haircut:wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:31 am

Clint;973254 wrote: Great speech. He got me with how he came to put his country before himself. I had never thought of his POW experience being a turning point for him that way. He is real...I wasn't sure of that before.
Kinda turns that plane-crashing timeline thing on its ear, doesn't it?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:07 am

Accountable;973435 wrote: Kinda turns that plane-crashing timeline thing on its ear, doesn't it?

He crashed the planes before he fell in love with his country.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:06 am

rjwould;973545 wrote: And uninformed republicans and democrats will vote their respective parties, right?

Doesn't that make it easy though? Any person in America can find several credible people in any one of our scenarios and feel confident in their vote, even though they themselves may be uninformed.

I can imagine many people claiming the choices to be too complicated if there were, lets say, twelve people running for president. There are always excuses for not voting for many people and there seems to be even more excuses for expanding ones choice of candidates. In the end, it seems to me that it's all excuses of the uninformed.

BTW-What are the issues anyway.

You are over simplifying the process. It is difficult enough with only two choices. At least it is if you take it seriously. Independants vote, that cant be an easy decision picking a candidate that doesnt fall into their realm of thinking.

Each issue is complex, lives are at stake, economics are never an easy topic. If you dont vote strictly party lines and you prefer one candidates views on military ambitions but anothers on economics each must be weighed substantially in order to come to a rational conclusion.

You have to prioritize and discard stances you are morally able to.

Nominees choose VP's after a vetting process that can take months, how long does it take citizens to sift through all the bullshit flying around ?

If you get your info from news stations and newspapers you have to piece together what is true and what is being manipulated because of skewed views.

If a voter is really interested in knowing they made the right choice they have to do at least some research on Senate votes, I dont know how Senators vote on most bills, Im guessing most people dont.

Its very easy to get caught up in hype and persuasive speeches, you might think you have your mind made up but after watching Governor Palin all of a sudden you find yourself thinking, hey I really like her, she might do a really good job, shes a scrapper, we need that.

You have to listen and be open then weed through all of it.

People that vote strictly party no matter what cause me to wonder how diligent they are in their thinking process.

I dont think its easy at all.

And while "some" blacks may vote for Obama because hes black and "some" women may vote Republican because Palin is female I think its a great disservice to those parties to be flippant about such a large and important segment of society.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:43 am

rjwould;973651 wrote: The process is overly simplified, it has to be that way because as you point out the actual issues are far too complex for even most well educated people. Thats why the process has to be easy for the masses. I agree that the public makes it a glib commentary, but thats who we are, isn't it?

I think the idea is to get as many people as possible to vote. It is a right and a responsibility. I don't like all the road bumps the two parties place in the way, but that is the nature of the control beast.

It seems to me that if I can file my taxes online along with all the other personal activities I can accomplish online, I should be able to vote online. There are lots of things that can be implemented to help the vote get out, regardless of how uninformed we are collectively.

Any response on what the issues are?:)

Just off the top of my head while Bush and McCain & Co. are congratulating themselves on the effectiveness of the troops surge we seem to be overlooking the enormous blunder we made by entering Iraq in the first place.

So while success may make everyone giddy and they get to pound eachothers backs its hard for me to ignore the fact that until we invaded Iraq there were no terrorists there. Well So Damn Insane was there but he wasnt threatening us.

At any rate getting out would be of the highest priority. Then after the troops come home we can address the gargantuan debt we find ourselves in due to this illegal, immoral and disgusting act of aggression.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:56 am

Not to mention the simplicity of electoral votes and super human being delegates WTF ?

I think they should make Dan Marino a super delegate.

And just for good measure....

Country 1st my white ass !

How about human race 1st, hows that sound ?

I dont presume to speak for God but Im inclined to think he isnt exclusively on our side.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:16 am

And Earth Wind & Fire...they should be super human being delegates.

The horn section, Phillip Bailey, the whole lot of them.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:33 am

I'm voting strictly pocketbook issue.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:36 am

JAB;973750 wrote: I don't think you can discount someone voting strictly by party lines and wonder if they are as diligent in their thinking. For all we know, they don't have a hot-button issue and have chosen the party that best represents their overall view. They could have been very diligent in that process even though I don't agree with it myself. Hence my registration as an Independent.

My sister is a teacher and whichever candidate in any party has the best education platform in her opinion, gets her vote. To hell with the rest of their other views is the stance she takes. Is that any more or less diligent?

Yes I think it is less than diligent. Its selfish. As the McCain camp has been saying, find a cause greater than yourself. I subscribe to that thinking.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:31 pm

Nomad;973442 wrote: He crashed the planes before he fell in love with his country.
Right. My point was that all of that happened before he changed. I did lots of stupid stuff before I realized that responsible grownups don't act that way. I'm just thankful I didn't have as severe a wakeup call as he did.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:24 pm

Comments heard today on the radio:

Obama delivered a great speech, but the transcript showed a pretty typical democrat speech with nothing new.

McCain's speech sucked, which is too bad because the text was excellent.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:00 am

Hoss;975504 wrote: The local rock station was on at lunch at my training center, it was a bash McCain fest. Nothing of substance either. My classmates could have cared less.

It saddens me, partly angers me, and then makes me realize that we deserve who we get stuck with if the majority of us don’t care enough to at the very least try to sort through the issues.

I don’t think it’s that complicated to make a wise choice. Just pick out any five issues and take a side on each, give them all equal weight, then go find a candidate that matches your top five the closest. I think that’s a simple way to start.

Hang in there hoss. No way in hell does a free, proud and independent country need a far left liberal for a president, or anything else.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:36 pm

Well Obama and McCain were both here in Virginia today and everybody here is buzzing about Obamas lipstick on a pig comment!

what do y'all reckon he meant?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:39 pm

Hope

go to the John McCain Naval pilot - we've been chatting about lipstick..

Good to see ya

Patsy

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:52 pm

hoppy;975738 wrote: Hang in there hoss. No way in hell does a free, proud and independent country need a far left liberal for a president, or anything else.

You definitely need a liberal (you know someone that believes in freedom for the individual) though else it looks-to an outsider- that you are going to take a massive lurch to the right, increasingly authoritarian, militaristic and isolated, Sad to see.

I know you guys don't think the rest of the world matters and it's actually only your likely foreign policy that is of any real interest to outsiders but

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... poll_N.htm

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:18 pm

Hope6;980355 wrote: Well Obama and McCain were both here in Virginia today and everybody here is buzzing about Obamas lipstick on a pig comment!

what do y'all reckon he meant? I found this in my English national paper "The Daily Mail" today. Yeah, i know what your thinking-- news travels slow to England. Quote" Barack Obama was at the centre of a sexist smear storm last night after he was accused of comparing Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin to a pig in lipstick. The democrat nominee angrily refused to apologise after he told a cheering crowd of supporters "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" Quote. What is that being flushed down millions of toilets in England??? Oh yeah, it's any support Obama had in England. Bye Bye Mr President.:wah::wah: You want to see a pig in lipstick Obama--look at your wife.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:26 pm

Sigh. Oscar I don't know about UK but the phrase in question has

been used by many... even McCain a few times. One clip CBS had

pulled because it had Katie Couric in it but trust me, I've seen it.

No need to go slamming Michelle Obama, either. Really.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/4706B5CA- ... 6AAA05AC0/

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:43 pm

valerie;981322 wrote: Sigh. Oscar I don't know about UK but the phrase in question has

been used by many... even McCain a few times. One clip CBS had

pulled because it had Katie Couric in it but trust me, I've seen it.

No need to go slamming Michelle Obama, either. Really.

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/4706B5CA- ... 6AAA05AC0/ As i said Valerie, we are slow at getting news here. My comment was deliberate. Obama would scream racism from my comment. How does the woman on the end of his insult feel after he pubicaly humiliated her? This is exactly why he is losing support. Typical, play the race card when it suits, throw the insults when it suits. In England our politicians may be a bunch of numbnuts but they would never disgrace themselves by coming down to Obama's level. I simply came down to the same level as he did when he insulted the woman. My husband has looked at Palin & Obama's wife & he knows which one he rather see naked & that is not a race card. Here, we have laws against this kind of sexist abuse. He would be the one publicaly humiliated. Show Obama "Paxman", he wouldn't last ten seconds. As i said, Bye Bye Mr President. I hope she whips your arss. "The new messiah?" More like a load of white racist bullocks. Take him down McCain!!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:55 pm

:mad::mad: Even if Obama was to win, our politicians have long memories. Support from England for Obama? After this? Not a hope. He can take that dinosoar Biden with him. Any running mate who has to steal speeches from one our most famous failed politicians, Neil kinnock, can't be trusted. I'm assuming that Michelle Obama found her husbands comments about Palin highly amusing?? If our papers have reported correctly, he is being slated in this country for not even having the balls to apologise to her when asked. What a twat.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:04 pm

I think you're mistaken Oscar. Obama's comment was not directed at

Palin. That phrase "lipstick on a pig" is fairly frequently used. McCain

himself used it last May, and before. That is all I'm saying.

As for sexist abuse, you are aware that McCain had numerous affairs,

including with current wife Cindy, before divorcing wife #1? Or that

McCain used the most sexist of all words when he called Cindy (then

his WIFE) a "c-word"?

I sure don't know where you get race card out of all of it, either.

If you just hate them to be hating them, fine. But it's probably a

good thing you can't vote for any of them...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:57 pm

McCain's going to win...The more I look at both of them the more I know McCain is going to be the next President of the United States of America.

Get ready.

You heard it here first.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:01 pm

Do you mind if I puke on your doorstep?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:18 pm

qsducks;981576 wrote: Do you mind if I puke on your doorstep?

:yh_think...

Yes,..yes actually I do!!!!...

:wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:31 am

qsducks;981576 wrote: Do you mind if I puke on your doorstep?

Be constructive, puke on the candidates. As they say in this neck of the woods when discussing politics-it's enough to give you the dry boak.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:24 am

gmc;981192 wrote: I know you guys don't think the rest of the world matters and it's actually only your likely foreign policy that is of any real interest to outsiders but

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... poll_N.htm

Even the majority doesn't always dictate who's going to be President and who's not.

We all know what happened in 2000 --...:yh_think...and 2004!!!...Yes that's right folks..*Drum rooooooollllllllllll* --It's RIGGED ELECTION TIME!!!!!!!******

*****Cheers******Claps!!!!!!!!**********

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:10 am

Ian;981719 wrote:

I think Obama is more worldly popular, he drew big crowds in the UK, I think this should be thought about by the American voters.

In what way exactly?...