Nobunaga wrote:... Snorril, this isn't about ambition. Your arguments depend on arguing nothing but sarcasm with people who want to talk about homosexuals being evil and the like. Hillary is campaigning as "The Experienced Alternative". It's her primary "strength". haha! (sorry, had to laugh at that).
... She has no experience worthy a run for the White House. Hey, am I wrong? If I missed some great accomplishment of hers, maybe you can fill me in, eh? And avoid a comparison argument with Obama, because, 1. He too has none, and, 2. He isn't pretending to.
...
Oh I was just commenting on her riduculous claim that Obama had "too much" ambition. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but I'm way too drunk too read more than 2 sentences.
Carebian Knight wrote:If Clinton makes it through primaries, then we are in serious trouble.
Having a genuine socialist in your presidentials feels pretty shit huh?
I share your pain....
Wha...? There are precisely 0 major US politicians, Democrats or not, that even fall into the "left" category. The US's "Lefties" are significantly more right than everywhere elses "rights"!
How can she be socialist when she isn't even in the correct hemisphere?
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
Me too! I think he is currently the best shot at a good president you guys have. Clinton would suck, but so would pretty much any republican.
USA politics are pretty weird to me. We have many parties and I still can't decide on which to vote on, so having 2 parties would only make it more difficult.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Me too! I think he is currently the best shot at a good president you guys have. Clinton would suck, but so would pretty much any republican.
USA politics are pretty weird to me. We have many parties and I still can't decide on which to vote on, so having 2 parties would only make it more difficult.
It's not even the deciding as much as how half the time we're just choosing which of the two asshat candidates gets to drive our country into the ground. ..I'd kill for a third party.
I just don't know why people settle for the two-party system
In Australia it still is - Liberal & Labour (for you Americans, our Liberal party is more right than the labour.. but they're both right.. as all two party systems are)
The Greens have finally become the 'third' party, i think they got 8% of the total vote, and got 5 people in the senate, which is a decent result i guess. But the fact that 90% of people voted either Labour or Liberal is really odd to me. Futurama said it best:
radiojake wrote:I just don't know why people settle for the two-party system
In Australia it still is - Liberal & Labour (for you Americans, our Liberal party is more right than the labour.. but they're both right.. as all two party systems are)
The Greens have finally become the 'third' party, i think they got 8% of the total vote, and got 5 people in the senate, which is a decent result i guess. But the fact that 90% of people voted either Labour or Liberal is really odd to me. Futurama said it best:
I would have to second this motion. There just isn't enough difference between the two parties to warrant voting for one over the other.
radiojake wrote: John Jackson vs Jack Johnson
vs Nixon
That's what the western world needs. Someone loud, obnoxious, bodyless and so very very evil to shake up the well defined yet identical established parties. Maybe it'll even force them to agree on something.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
Me too! I think he is currently the best shot at a good president you guys have. Clinton would suck, but so would pretty much any republican.
USA politics are pretty weird to me. We have many parties and I still can't decide on which to vote on, so having 2 parties would only make it more difficult.
Yea, so far I think I am voting Obama in the upcoming elections, but unfortunately, I don't think he has much of a chance in getting elected past the primaries- mostly because America has its fair share of racists whether we like to admit it or not. For that reason, I believe that Edwards is really the only shot the democrats have at a presidential seat. Clinton is too controversial, and Obama is too different (unfortunately) for US politics at the current day and age. The tough part for Edwards will be getting past the primaries. Also, working against Obama is US' horrendously low voter turnout percentage, especially among the lower and poorly educated class, which again, unfortunately, is dominated by non-whites.
Me too! I think he is currently the best shot at a good president you guys have. Clinton would suck, but so would pretty much any republican.
USA politics are pretty weird to me. We have many parties and I still can't decide on which to vote on, so having 2 parties would only make it more difficult.
I think the wise money says that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be a firm favourite to be the next president ,and unless Edwards garners a lot more support then it comes down to the following;
Is the USA electorate more inclined to vote in the first women president or the first black president ?
Personally I think Obama is a far better choice but will lose out because of his colour, the tragedy might be that Clinton will be selected and then lose the big prize because of general distrust in her.
I say tragedy simply because I feel that any Republican president would continue with the foreign policy blunders of recent years, at least a Democrat would offer a fresh perspective in this area.
Me too! I think he is currently the best shot at a good president you guys have. Clinton would suck, but so would pretty much any republican.
USA politics are pretty weird to me. We have many parties and I still can't decide on which to vote on, so having 2 parties would only make it more difficult.
I think the wise money says that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be a firm favourite to be the next president ,and unless Edwards garners a lot more support then it comes down to the following; Is the USA electorate more inclined to vote in the first women president or the first black president ? Personally I think Obama is a far better choice but will lose out because of his colour, the tragedy might be that Clinton will be selected and then lose the big prize because of general distrust in her. I say tragedy simply because I feel that any Republican president would continue with the foreign policy blunders of recent years, at least a Democrat would offer a fresh perspective in this area.
Me too! I think he is currently the best shot at a good president you guys have. Clinton would suck, but so would pretty much any republican.
USA politics are pretty weird to me. We have many parties and I still can't decide on which to vote on, so having 2 parties would only make it more difficult.
I think the wise money says that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be a firm favourite to be the next president ,and unless Edwards garners a lot more support then it comes down to the following; Is the USA electorate more inclined to vote in the first women president or the first black president ? Personally I think Obama is a far better choice but will lose out because of his colour, the tragedy might be that Clinton will be selected and then lose the big prize because of general distrust in her. I say tragedy simply because I feel that any Republican president would continue with the foreign policy blunders of recent years, at least a Democrat would offer a fresh perspective in this area.
Carebian Knight wrote:This is something that got e-mailed to me, the facts are true:
Subject: 33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language June 6, 2007. On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:23 -0500, "Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" wrote:
Senators, Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill, 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America. I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.
I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States.
Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator...impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warranted.
Worse, four of you voting against English as America's official language are presidential candidates: Senator's Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama.
Four senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language.
This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks.....unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States. If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties...and preferable totally out of the United States Senate.
The entire immigration bill is a farce...your action only confirms this really isn't about America; it's about self-serving politics...despicable at best.
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America:
Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President? Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President? GOD FORBID! Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Want to be President? Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat.. wants Navajo as the national language, didn't work before! Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for him Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be President Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here..... Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President? GOD FORBID! Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) S! chumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D)
What? That's an outrage! you mean that 33 senators voted towards keeping america a melting pot. 33 people wanted to make it fair for all the citizens for America rather than just the whites.
Carebian Knight wrote:If Clinton makes it through primaries, then we are in serious trouble.
Having a genuine socialist in your presidentials feels pretty shit huh?
I share your pain....
It's funny that you actually think Clinton is a socialist. Morons. (Just because she may seem more 'leftist' or 'liberal' compared to the republican party (which isn't hard) doesn't mean she is a socialist) Geez. Why don't you start pulling the old 'RED UNDER THE BED' threat to really scare everyone.
QFT. US politics both intrigues and appalls me... If you think there is any real measurable difference between the two parties on the major issues that will affect the world today then you're probably mistaken. Believe me, you won't have a socialist President whatever the outcome. Neither will the UK have a socialist PM. The French came a little closer, as Napoleon will wrathfully testify, but still...
American politics is simply right vs slightly righter.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Hyperbole was used...Hillary is still by far the hardest left-winger ever to tarnish US politics.
So vote RON PAUL. Or HUCKABEE, because RP isnt really a realistic option. Still, I like the guy.
Are you serious? She isn't a left winger, Napoleon, thats the whole point... You could perhaps accuse her of being the most centrist or perhaps populiast, but not Leftist!
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Mr_Adams wrote:raised taxes, bigger government, abortion, gay marriag, all the tipcal democrat B.S.
OH NOES! Teh Democrats will destroy the universe with their slightly less right viewpoints! WE'S ALL GONNA DIE! ...Meh. I find it very wierd how seriously some of the US seems to take it's politics...
Neutrino! You forget that they have their nice cosy little view of the world, and if anything slightly different comes along, they have to get the pitchforks out and chase em outta town!! YEEE-HAAAWW
You forgot shotguns. Lethal force: the only way to go.
No. You don't understand what these things would do to the economy. U.S. s a capitalistic society. + Gay marriage and abortion are against what the Bible says. America was fonded as a Christine country and they are trying to turn it into everything against Christian beliefs.
This isn't a theocracy we are democratic/capitalist nation.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Hyperbole was used...Hillary is still by far the hardest left-winger ever to tarnish US politics.
So vote RON PAUL. Or HUCKABEE, because RP isnt really a realistic option. Still, I like the guy.
Are you serious? She isn't a left winger, Napoleon, thats the whole point... You could perhaps accuse her of being the most centrist or perhaps populiast, but not Leftist!
I suppose Id take issue with that graph. I'll admit im no expertl, but Hillary has just said some outrageous things.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Hyperbole was used...Hillary is still by far the hardest left-winger ever to tarnish US politics.
So vote RON PAUL. Or HUCKABEE, because RP isnt really a realistic option. Still, I like the guy.
Are you serious? She isn't a left winger, Napoleon, thats the whole point... You could perhaps accuse her of being the most centrist or perhaps populiast, but not Leftist!
I suppose Id take issue with that graph. I'll admit im no expertl, but Hillary has just said some outrageous things.
Outrageous doesn't mean left-wing... Care to name some of those things?
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Hyperbole was used...Hillary is still by far the hardest left-winger ever to tarnish US politics.
So vote RON PAUL. Or HUCKABEE, because RP isnt really a realistic option. Still, I like the guy.
Are you serious? She isn't a left winger, Napoleon, thats the whole point... You could perhaps accuse her of being the most centrist or perhaps populiast, but not Leftist!
I suppose Id take issue with that graph. I'll admit im no expertl, but Hillary has just said some outrageous things.
Outrageous doesn't mean left-wing... Care to name some of those things?
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Thats basically Socialism. She also repeadtly hypertrophisizes a material society over individual rights
