2008 USA Presidential Primaries thread

[jpj]

what is the North American Union shit?

[GaijinPunch]

but I really think our country needs to stop policing the world

We need to quit policing the world where there's interests for rich people. We invaded Iraq b/c of WMDs. Had nothing to do with oil, right? Yet, North Korea has an enriched uranium program, and has even done nuclear testing... did we invade them? Fuck no. Why? They're poor as dirt.

When the cat was out of the bag that there were no WMDs, it was all "Saddam's a cruel dictator" but there are dozens of those all over the globe, doing far worse things, and of course, we don't give two shits about them or the cities they pillage.

I don't know if a full on high school sex in the back seat style pull out is the answer, but the long term goal is very clear: get the fuck out. Just like Vietnam, it is not winnable.

i don't think you can stick your cock in someone's mouth and not call it sexual~

I stick my cock in my mouth almost daily and I don't call it sexual.

[jp]

what is the North American Union shit?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965

Bush put all this in motion without any involvement from the senate or congress mind you.

Edit: Also, excuse the nutjob link, it was the first thing that popped up when I went to google a better description than what I could give.

[jpj]

I stick my cock in my mouth almost daily and I don't call it sexual.

what would you say if bill put his cock in your mouth?

[Fighter17]

Regardless of your moral standing, adultery is not a crime.

It's not about Moral standings, it's about a public figure who lied to people about what he did that day. Which is more than enough for impeachment. He lied under oath and that's a crime under the law. And remember Gaijin, he was one of two presidents who was impeached (later acquitted).[/quote]

Where is a blowjob defined as "sexual relations". It's indeed a gray area. I would've lied through my teeth the whole way through. Anybody would have. Shit... our most famous president of recent history was a womanizer.

It's consider a sex act here in Florida.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965

Bush put all this in motion without any involvement from the senate or congress mind you.

Edit: Also, excuse the nutjob link, it was the first thing that popped up when I went to google a better description than what I could give.

Jesus Christ I totally forgot about this.

Really stupid Bush, meh.

still want an answer to the jew question

Ever herd of Private Message?

[BulletMagnet]

First off, Twiddle, the "Jew thing" has nothing to do with this topic - if PM isn't good enough for you, then please drop it (and don't start another topic about it, the mods have had more than enough of that nonsense).

Anyways...

Regan turned everything around for the better. We had a strong president in the 80s who pretty much got America back on its feet.

What we had was a Prez who was a smooth enough talker to convince us to ignore the problems at hand (after all, upper-class tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending solve everything!) and pass them along to future generations to deal with (sound familiar?). Note my earlier comment about the national debt and Reagan's contribution to it (or check this site. But hey, water under the bridge - "he made us feel good about ourselves again!"

We Americans choose the person who will take America to the right direction (it can be either a Democrat or a Republican). If the whole world doesn't like who we choose then then tough on them. World Opinions shouldn't never affect our choosing of the next president. Choose a person who you think will take America to the right direction, not the People of Germany.

Considering how much conservatives in particular like to toot their horn about the Prez being not just the leader of America (a conservative notion to begin with, since originally he was intended to be no more powerful or influential than either of the other branches), but the leader of the free world, not bothering to take any other country's position into account doesn't seem to make much sense. After all, when it comes to a President's legacy, foreign policy doesn't count, right? Our current leader certainly wishes that were the case...

And Democrats love to raise my taxes.

Correction - Dems actually listen to the people's requests to NOT completely dismantle the country's infrastructure and social safety net (a plea which conservatives have steadfastly ignored, choosing to stick with the "nanny state" straw man), and, wonder of wonders, actually realize that they have to make sure that such things are paid for (unlike W. and his wars and tax cuts), and are willing to ask those who have benefited most from the country's economic setup to give more back than those who are living paycheck to paycheck.

Obama (Christian with a Muslim name, that's going to hurt him big time).

Only with people too shallow and stupid to judge him on his policies rather than his name.

How many rich people in America: less than 1%. They get tons of taxes already.

Which billionaire was it who recently stated, in terms of percentages, that his maid was paying more in taxes than he was? Seriously, even they have to admit how ridiculous it's gotten under the current administration - "plenty of taxes" would only seem to hold water with the uber-Libertarian "all taxes are immoral!" lunatics (which I don't perceive you to be, offhand).

OK, who cares. You know I mean Democrats.

As opposed to "Repugs," or "Republican'ts," or "Regressives?"

Seriously, can you imagine how eager your pal Rush (and all of his self-titled "dittoheads") would be to say "oh, who cares" if anyone took the name of his party in vain? A minor point, yes, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I've done research, it's called the liberal version of Reganomics is bullshit. Most of your point of view about Reganomics is not even true.

Links? Sorry, but just the notion of "tax cuts increase revenue" (not just "spur economic growth," but increase revenue) is so incredibly ludicrous, even on its surface, that it boggles the mind how anyone can speak in its favor with a straight face.

A popular example is the African American community, which the left saids Reganomics screw over Blacks.

Reaganomics screws over everyone who isn't already rich, period, regardless of race.

A recent poll of African Americans saids 60% of Africans Americans who can't move forwarded are causing it by themselfs (Charisma magazine Feb 08 issue). In other words, they are not trying to move forward.

Quick and obvious question for you - why on Earth, if blacks have just as equal of a shot at "making it" as anyone else, would they choose not to do so? Why in heaven's name would anyone prefer to be poor and destitute if they had a fair chance at moving up? And don't say "their culture is lazy and hates work" - the backbreaking dead-end jobs that so many of them end up in would break most of the rest of us in a week.

I'm 100% convince if MLK Jr. was still alive he wouldn't say anything bad about Reganomics.

To put it bluntly, I wholeheartedly disagree - he was very well aware of the "below the surface" elements that were holding and continue to hold minorities back, and the fact that he eventually became bold enough to start talking about it is what got him killed.

If you haven't notice that Rush still pawns the radio time slot with the average of 13 million viewers a day. That's a hell a lot more than the liberal Air America who're having problems staying afloat.

I just love this "evidence" of right-wing radio's inherent superiority...from a shmupper no less...seriously, why play these titles which aren't even popular enough to make it over here in the first place, when Shrek Super Party, because it sold more copies, is obviously superior!

Rush has higher standards than Bill. To Bill it's ok to lie to the world.

Has Rush ever come clean on his accusation that Hillary killed that guy? Or his assertion that America has more trees now than it did when Columbus was voyaging? And the countless other things he's pulled out of his sizable arse? Come on, if you're going to say that someone has higher standards than Bubba, the last place you want to go is the likes of Rush.

OK and Bill had a BJ as President.

Please watch this. It pretty much says all that needs to be said on this matter.

[GaijinPunch]

what would you say if bill put his cock in your mouth?

"Thanks!"

It's not about Moral standings, it's about a public figure who lied to people about what he did that day.

Oh. The President can't lie? Cool.. I thought Bush was bullshitting everyone. I guess everything he said was true.

[The n00b]

what is the North American Union shit?

It's part of a conspiracy theory that involves the whole world being run by the president of Mexico. Is that nuts enough for you? Turned out it was just a little too nuts even for Ron Paul.

Oh yeah and Fighter17 is trolling this whole thread. Getting a BJ is worse than turning almost all of South American into your own little bloody hell hole(Reagan), starting wars to make your pals rich(Bush), or lying about being a drug addict while being an obese assclown(Rush Limbaugh)?

[Ex-Cyber]

Which billionaire was it who recently stated, in terms of percentages, that his maid was paying more in taxes than he was?

Probably Warren Buffett; despite being ridiculously rich (#2 behind Bill Gates last time I checked), he tends to publicly denounce policies that support the rich getting richer. He did not inherit his wealth and plans to leave most of it to charity.

[Fighter17]

Considering how much conservatives in particular like to toot their horn about the Prez being not just the leader of America (a conservative notion to begin with, since originally he was intended to be no more powerful or influential than either of the other branches), but the leader of the free world, not bothering to take any other country's position into account doesn't seem to make much sense. After all, when it comes to a President's legacy, foreign policy doesn't count, right? Our current leader certainly wishes that were the case...

You partly misread my post. I mean is that we shouldn't judge our votes by what people in a foreign county saids. You shouldn't vote for a person because Germany wants that person to become President. You vote for the person who represents your interest.

Correction - Dems actually listen to the people's requests to NOT completely dismantle the country's infrastructure and social safety net (a plea which conservatives have steadfastly ignored, choosing to stick with the "nanny state" straw man), and, wonder of wonders, actually realize that they have to make sure that such things are paid for (unlike W. and his wars and tax cuts), and are willing to ask those who have benefited most from the country's economic setup to give more back than those who are living paycheck to paycheck.

And these people want to force heathcare on me. Are you out of your mind? I prefer limited government than a "nanny state" government which the modern Democrats so wanted of create.

Now Bullet, if they do listen my request that I don't want forced heathcare then they must listen to me right? Most likely not because I didn't vote for them in office in the first place. They'll only listen to the people who voted for them in, and ignored those who didn't voted for them. >.>

Only with people too shallow and stupid to judge him on his policies rather than his name.

You'll be surprise. It's going to haunt him because: "A guy with a Muslim name want to become President, are you for real?" Many people are going to be thinking about it. It's sick, but it's going to happen just wait.

Reaganomics screws over everyone who isn't already rich, period, regardless of race.

Then why it was so popular? Democrats were in Congress back then so why they didn't try to stop part or most of it (they got the House the whole time, and most of the time the Senate)?

They are some things that you're not making sense to me at all. If Reaganomics was so bad according to you then why Walter Mondale didn't won back in 1984 (why the hell he got killed badly in the 84 election).

Quick and obvious question for you - why on Earth, if blacks have just as equal of a shot at "making it" as anyone else, would they choose not to do so? Why in heaven's name would anyone prefer to be poor and destitute if they had a fair chance at moving up? And don't say "their culture is lazy and hates work" - the backbreaking dead-end jobs that so many of them end up in would break most of the rest of us in a week.

It's because a good number of them are lazy and hates work. This is not coming from me, this is coming from Middle Class African Americans who're sick of tired of these people not trying to make their lives better. Look at my high school. It's very easy to pass if you pay attention. Majority of African Americas in my high school mostly failed. You know why, they don't even try. I seen it first hand, they don't care. And for the ones who do give a shit, they're sick of tired of these people. I've lived in Brooklyn for years and it's even worse up there. Once again Rudy did a program which make people work to earn money and the majority of African Americans and Democrats were piss because "we have to work to earn it." A African American can survive in America just fine, it's called get a education.

I just love this "evidence" of right-wing radio's inherent superiority...from a shmupper no less...seriously, why play these titles which aren't even popular enough to make it over here in the first place, when Shrek Super Party, because it sold more copies, is obviously superior!

Dude, go on any radio website that gets estimate viewers counts. You can hate Rush all you want, but the numbers don't lie (and don't try to compare it to video games, that's a totally different area).

Now, why many left-wing radio stations in the pass faded away while Rush is still number #1? No one whats to listen to them. If people really want left-wing radio then they would become more popular, but that's not the case as of today. Air America is down the shitters, no body wants to listen to them.

Has Rush ever come clean on his accusation that Hillary killed that guy? Or his assertion that America has more trees now than it did when Columbus was voyaging? And the countless other things he's pulled out of his sizable arse? Come on, if you're going to say that someone has higher standards than Bubba, the last place you want to go is the likes of Rush.

Show me proof, I won't be too surprise if this is true. This is Rush after all. Then again I hear more BS from the left it's crazy.

Ok, I'm not affiliated with any party, but the Democrats were going downhill after Johnson.

I should reply to more things, but I disagree with you on a lot of issues so you get the idea.

[jp]

what is the North American Union shit?

It's part of a conspiracy theory that involves the whole world being run by the president of Mexico. Is that nuts enough for you? Turned out it was just a little too nuts even for Ron Paul.

Your incompetence is staggering.


1. The president of Mexico isn't running the world. What it basically does is turn Canada, Mexico, and the US into one country, run by all three governments.

2. Its not a conspiracy theory. Bush DID/IS trying to do it. Whether or not it will succeed, nobody knows. But its pretty well known in Washington and has been discussed on CNN and MSNBC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9 ... re=related


And look! That dreaded Ron Paul knows about it too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE8FKPH8 ... re=related

[Specineff]

Let me just say (and I know) that the president of Mexico running North America is just as impossible as 1+1=7.

[BulletMagnet]

You shouldn't vote for a person because Germany wants that person to become President. You vote for the person who represents your interest.

The thing is, especially with the onset of globalization, what's good for one country is also good for another...seriously, how many Europeans saw the Bush disaster coming before many of us did (some, incredibly, still haven't)?

I prefer limited government than a "nanny state" government which the modern Democrats so wanted of create.

Most Americans are far more concerned with losing vital government services than they are with the supposedly-looming Communist resurgence (and once again, when it comes to invasive government, does the name "Terry Schiavo" ring a bell?). Remember when Bush attempted to slash social security, when his party controlled all three branches, no less? Remember how well that went over?

Now Bullet, if they do listen my request that I don't want forced heathcare then they must listen to me right?

I'd have to double-check, but if memory serves all of the Dems' current health plans allow people to opt out of government-provided healthcare if they choose (someone correct me if I'm off there).

They'll only listen to the people who voted for them in, and ignored those who didn't voted for them.

Dude, NO ONE has listened less to anyone other than his constituents than Bush has. Of course, the kicker is that the reeling Republicans, smelling defeat in November, are now demanding that the Dems practice the "bipartisanship" that they rejected, wholesale, the entire time they were in power. It's enough chutzpah to make you gag.

You'll be surprise. It's going to haunt him because: "A guy with a Muslim name want to become President, are you for real?" Many people are going to be thinking about it. It's sick, but it's going to happen just wait.

You do realize that the people who most loudly trumpet "Barack Hussein Obama" are people like Rush?

Democrats were in Congress back then so why they didn't try to stop part or most of it (they got the House the whole time, and most of the time the Senate)?

Because Reagan was able to work the "bipartisan" angle that i referred to earlier, which basically translated to (and still does) "give the Republicans whatever they want." Oppose that notion and you're "blindly, bitterly partisan, unwilling to cooperate or compromise." Of course, none of this mattered when Clinton faced an unfriendly Congress...how bipartisan was good ol' Newt?

They are some things that you're not making sense to me at all. If Reaganomics was so bad according to you then why Walter Mondale didn't won back in 1984 (why the hell he got killed badly in the 84 election).

Bush's first four years were an unmitigated disaster, why is he still in office? Because of his popularity, and all the good he's done for the nation? Or "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

It's because a good number of them are lazy and hates work.

What makes them inherently lazier than whites or any other race?

Majority of African Americas in my high school mostly failed. You know why, they don't even try. I seen it first hand, they don't care.

Is this because they're all lazy and worthless, or that they've just given up, due to the barriers they face which whites and others don't? Come on, Fighter - I think it's safe to say that almost anyone, regardless of race, would be perfectly willing to work, and work hard, if it meant an honest chance at getting out of the ghetto. Seriously, do you dispute this? Do blacks somehow lack the desire for their children to have a better life than they do? Ask a few.

You can hate Rush all you want, but the numbers don't lie (and don't try to compare it to video games, that's a totally different area).

What's different about it? My point is that popularity does not always equal quality - why shouldn't this apply to radio shouters any less than it does to video games? (Disclaimer - I haven't ever listened to Air America, so i can't speak for its quality or lack thereof). Either way, just because a lot of people get it doesn't mean it's better than the alternatives.

Show me proof, I won't be too surprise if this is true. This is Rush after all.

On the "murder" thing, he originally said it years ago, but here is a record of him bringing it back up again just last September (and yes, it is a "liberal" site, but the quote is direct, and accompanied by an audio clip).

The "trees" thing (which I misstated, he actually claimed there were fewer back when the Constitution was being written, not in the age of exploration), along with a whole bunch of other crackpot statements from Rush, is here, around halfway down the page.

Then again I hear more BS from the left it's crazy.

I honestly can't think of any left-winger off the top of my head who dissembles and lies more than the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Boortz, Matalin, and their ilk...I don't doubt that they're out there someplace, but they're not nearly as numerous, and not given nearly as much of a voice (heck, Dan Rather was canned for an incident that none of the above names would even blink at) than their counterparts on the right. And the kicker is, somehow all you ever hear is about how "liberal" the media is.

[JoshF]

Let me just say (and I know) that the president of Mexico running North America is just as impossible as 1+1=7.

It would be more about the United States running Mexico (the stage is already set with liberalization.)

[shoe-sama]

damn liberals, teaching my kids evolution and shit

[Zebra Airforce]

A African American can survive in America just fine, it's called get a education.

Ah, so all we need to do is make them poor through the power of reaganomics! That'll get 'em more exicted about school! Sure beats a student outreach program. After all, those taxes might come from a rich white male, and we wouldn't want to burden anyone unfairly.

What it basically does is turn Canada, Mexico, and the US into one country, run by all three governments.

Where the hell am I supposed to go to dodge the draft if that happens?

[djvinc]

(disclaimer : yes I'm french, so you may not read this french-tinted post)

About what international people think about american presidents, it's not about how they impress us, or some world leader worship issue. As far as I'm concerned, it's only about the sad habit americans have to start a war every 10 years. They have weapons, they feel the need to use them. OK. They need to train new generals and offer them a real battlefield experience. OK.
We would like to know where the weapons will be aimed next.

Also, about environment, this massive waste of energy is changing our climate. We don't want the surface of our countries to shrink because of the rise of the sea level. Americans' energy expense is the triple or Europeans'. I couldn't imagine it before seing it with my own eyes

I won't develop anymore on those subjects because it's not really on-topic, but voters can influence this for sure.

[incognoscente]

Light thread clean-up. If you feel that some posts are missing, you can probably find them here.


If you want to argue with Fighter17 (debate is too civilized a word), argue on topic. Do not bring in baggage from older threads on other topics unless they directly pertain to discussion here. Thanks.

[JoshF]

I honestly can't think of any left-winger off the top of my head who dissembles and lies more than the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Boortz, Matalin, and their ilk...I don't doubt that they're out there someplace, but they're not nearly as numerous, and not given nearly as much of a voice (heck, Dan Rather was canned for an incident that none of the above names would even blink at) than their counterparts on the right. And the kicker is, somehow all you ever hear is about how "liberal" the media is.

And when Chavez attempted to expand democratic participation and make community councils official organs of the government, and remove term limits similar to most parliamentary systems of the "Free World," this could only be characterized as a pathway to dictatorship whether I was watching ABC, CNN, FOX, or MSNBC.

Fighter, do you really think that someone like Chris Matthews is FAR LEFT? Do you really think these MNC's are trying to evoke revolution? That would make their investors and advertisors really happy. I mean, if you really believe this shit is FAR LEFT you have such a narrow view of the political spectrum.

They have weapons, they feel the need to use them. OK. They need to train new generals and offer them a real battlefield experience

It's more about profiteering and protecting economic interests. Defense contracting wouldn't be a lucrative market if they kept supplying without any demand. Sometimes you need to create the demand.

damn liberals, teaching my kids evolution and shit

State religion: homosexuality

[Fighter17]

You do realize that the people who most loudly trumpet "Barack Hussein Obama" are people like Rush?

And the attacks are already being. If he was a real Christian he would give up the Muslim name. I've know a lot of Christians who wasn't born Christians and all of them have Christian first names like Kevin and David. I mean, Barack Hussein Obama the next president of the United States in a White Majority nation, nah.

It's like someone trying to run as President in a Arab country with the name John Johnson and he's a Muslim. No one is going to vote for him.

I personally wouldn't want him as President, too young and not enough experience.

Because Reagan was able to work the "bipartisan" angle that i referred to earlier, which basically translated to (and still does) "give the Republicans whatever they want." Oppose that notion and you're "blindly, bitterly partisan, unwilling to cooperate or compromise." Of course, none of this mattered when Clinton faced an unfriendly Congress...how bipartisan was good ol' Newt?

That means Decmocrats at the time liked his ideas. And today a bunch of Democrats still like him. Hell even Obama credit him once.

Bush's first four years were an unmitigated disaster, why is he still in office? Because of his popularity, and all the good he's done for the nation? Or "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?"

Because John Kerry was a fucking idiot. Bush was bad enough, but John Kerry, come on. It's much better to had Bush at the time than retard Kerry. Hell he supports Obama and not his own running mate Edward.

What makes them inherently lazier than whites or any other race?

Because it's in their mind set that I'm never going to be someone.

Is this because they're all lazy and worthless, or that they've just given up, due to the barriers they face which whites and others don't? Come on, Fighter - I think it's safe to say that almost anyone, regardless of race, would be perfectly willing to work, and work hard, if it meant an honest chance at getting out of the ghetto. Seriously, do you dispute this? Do blacks somehow lack the desire for their children to have a better life than they do? Ask a few.

Because they think they can get into college by Sports. They think education is stupid in the first place (which I found it insane) . And you know what, they're not going to have good futures. For the few who do get a education you know what they become? Doctors, Lawers, Businessman, etc. Talk to any one who had a great working job and they'll say education is needed. There's no barriers for them. No one is stopping them for a education. If they have the will to survive in America like anyone else they'll crave for education.

A good number of blacks tried to get out of the ghetto, but they don't want to do good in school (which I found to the most amazement). I grew up in a ghetto area for a few years, I see kids who want to get the hell out of here, but at the same time they don't want to get a education because it's too "boring."

And for the ones who do good in the future, they really don't like these group of people. They're so sick of tired of these people trying to get welfare checks and creating too many children it makes them sick.

What's different about it? My point is that popularity does not always equal quality - why shouldn't this apply to radio shouters any less than it does to video games? (Disclaimer - I haven't ever listened to Air America, so i can't speak for its quality or lack thereof). Either way, just because a lot of people get it doesn't mean it's better than the alternatives.

If people like you hate Rush with a passion, why no liberal radio stations even comes close to his ratings?

I honestly can't think of any left-winger off the top of my head who dissembles and lies more than the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Boortz, Matalin, and their ilk...I don't doubt that they're out there someplace, but they're not nearly as numerous, and not given nearly as much of a voice (heck, Dan Rather was canned for an incident that none of the above names would even blink at) than their counterparts on the right. And the kicker is, somehow all you ever hear is about how "liberal" the media is.

CNN except for Lou Dobbs, and just about everyone on MSNBC. Very liberal on MSNBC.

]Ah, so all we need to do is make them poor through the power of reaganomics! That'll get 'em more exicted about school! Sure beats a student outreach program. After all, those taxes might come from a rich white male, and we wouldn't want to burden anyone unfairly.

Once again if the left hate Reagannomics so bad then why Reagan won 525 electoral votes total out of 538 in 84?

Fighter, do you really think that someone like Chris Matthews is FAR LEFT? Do you really think these MNC's are trying to evoke revolution? That would make their investors and advertisors really happy. I mean, if you really believe this shit is FAR LEFT you have such a narrow view of the political spectrum.

Yes he's liberal (and he supports Obama BTW). I watched his programs many times before. One program he brought on many liberals on the show I just shut off the TV. I don't watch the TV news anymore because there's no real news on them.

And when Chavez attempted to expand democratic participation and make community councils official organs of the government, and remove term limits similar to most parliamentary systems of the "Free World," this could only be characterized as a pathway to dictatorship whether I was watching ABC, CNN, FOX, or MSNBC.

I read what he was planning to do, he want the country to be another leftest Socialist country which he can try to get power for the rest of his life. Thank goodness the voters said no to that bullshit.

[djvinc]

Is this because they're all lazy and worthless, or that they've just given up, due to the barriers they face which whites and others don't? Come on, Fighter - I think it's safe to say that almost anyone, regardless of race, would be perfectly willing to work, and work hard, if it meant an honest chance at getting out of the ghetto. Seriously, do you dispute this? Do blacks somehow lack the desire for their children to have a better life than they do? Ask a few.

Because they think they can get into college by Sports. They think education is stupid in the first place (which I found it insane) . And you know what, they're not going to have good futures. For the few who do get a education you know what they become? Doctors, Lawers, Businessman, etc. Talk to any one who had a great working job and they'll say education is needed. There's no barriers for them. No one is stopping them for a education. If they have the will to survive in America like anyone else they'll crave for education.

A good number of blacks tried to get out of the ghetto, but they don't want to do good in school (which I found to the most amazement). I grew up in a ghetto area for a few years, I see kids who want to get the hell out of here, but at the same time they don't want to get a education because it's too "boring."

And for the ones who do good in the future, they really don't like these group of people. They're so sick of tired of these people trying to get welfare checks and creating too many children it makes them sick.

Damn he's serious !
Maybe you should try black make-up and see for yourself how people judge you, and how it's impossible to have the same life as white people do. It's a heavy burden to be discriminated like they are.
Of course, at the end, you are more inclined to feel miserable and look for an easier and different life.

[Fighter17]

Damn he's serious !
Maybe you should try black make-up and see for yourself how people judge you, and how it's impossible to have the same life as white people do. It's a heavy burden to be discriminated like they are.
Of course, at the end, you are more inclined to feel miserable and look for an easier and different life.

And from a good friend who's a Middle-Class African American who's going to college: Racism hurts if you accept it (and its not a burden if you don't accept it). Being Black is not an accuse for not getting a education.

Now, if his family can all go to college (which they all did), anyone can do it. Him and I are sick of tired of people using the race card (which the liberal left has been doing for years).

[Zebra Airforce]

If people like you hate Rush with a passion, why no liberal radio stations even comes close to his ratings?

Because sensationalist bullshit is more popular and captures the attention of soccer moms more easily than real news. Just take a look at that Fox "news" Mass Effect video to see what I mean.

Once again if the left hate Reagannomics so bad then why Reagan won 525 electoral votes total out of 538 in 84?

I don't care what "the left" thinks. The trickle down theory doesn't work. It doesn't even make sense! Anyone with a shred of logic should be able to see why.

[Fighter17]

Because sensationalist bullshit is more popular and captures the attention of soccer moms more easily than real news. Just take a look at that Fox "news" Mass Effect video to see what I mean.

No offense but if you talk about Mass Effect in different stations like CNN and MSNBC you'll get the same results.

I don't care what "the left" thinks. The trickle down theory doesn't work. It doesn't even make sense! Anyone with a shred of logic should be able to see why.

It makes perfect sense to me. It worked perfectly during Reagan time. People were able to go back to work, unemployment was going down, and you can afford to own a home unlike the Carter era.

The only thing I see wrong with it was the high spending, but it was needed to get America back on its feet.

[Neon]

(disclaimer : yes I'm french, so you may not read this french-tinted post)

About what international people think about american presidents, it's not about how they impress us, or some world leader worship issue. As far as I'm concerned, it's only about the sad habit americans have to start a war every 10 years. They have weapons, they feel the need to use them. OK. They need to train new generals and offer them a real battlefield experience. OK.
We would like to know where the weapons will be aimed next.

Also, about environment, this massive waste of energy is changing our climate. We don't want the surface of our countries to shrink because of the rise of the sea level. Americans' energy expense is the triple or Europeans'. I couldn't imagine it before seing it with my own eyes

I won't develop anymore on those subjects because it's not really on-topic, but voters can influence this for sure.

We can go tit for tat with this ridiculous crap all day long (Ooo, France tends to lose wars. BOOYAH! You must be like, total girlie men, etc. etc.) but again, I'd like to think we can do a bit better. Please try to think beyond crude stereotypes and absurd generalizations when forming an opinion of nationalities other than your own. Just because the USA lacks a decent healthcare system and is involved in a war based on lies doesn't mean all of us approve of the situation we're in. Most of us don't, in fact.

[szycag]

You do realize that the people who most loudly trumpet "Barack Hussein Obama" are people like Rush?

And the attacks are already being. If he was a real Christian he would give up the Muslim name. I've know a lot of Christians who wasn't born Christians and all of them have Christian first names like Kevin and David. I mean, Barack Hussein Obama the next president of the United States in a White Majority nation, nah.

How superficial could someone get to judge him primarily by his name? A person's name is about identity and family, Barack's mother obviously was crucial in making him the person he became. If he changed his name just to avoid stigmas about his bloodline, I'd have less respect for him. A person is the sum of the choices they make.

[freddiebamboo]

F17 is still coming out with this shite?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?

[djvinc]

We can go tit for tat with this ridiculous crap all day long (Ooo, France tends to lose wars. BOOYAH! You must be like, total girlie men, etc. etc.) but again, I'd like to think we can do a bit better. Please try to think beyond crude stereotypes and absurd generalizations when forming an opinion of nationalities other than your own. Just because the USA lacks a decent healthcare system and is involved in a war based on lies doesn't mean all of us approve of the situation we're in. Most of us don't, in fact.

I'm not generalizing the opinion of americans, I argue about what America does to the world and why we care, that's all. If America is a democracy, then stop this mess, that's all.

(I do enjoy your emulation of redneck anti-french rhetorics )

[Neon]

We can go tit for tat with this ridiculous crap all day long (Ooo, France tends to lose wars. BOOYAH! You must be like, total girlie men, etc. etc.) but again, I'd like to think we can do a bit better. Please try to think beyond crude stereotypes and absurd generalizations when forming an opinion of nationalities other than your own. Just because the USA lacks a decent healthcare system and is involved in a war based on lies doesn't mean all of us approve of the situation we're in. Most of us don't, in fact.

I'm not generalizing the opinion of americans, I argue about what America does to the world and why we care, that's all. If America is a democracy, then stop this mess, that's all.

(I do enjoy your emulation of redneck anti-french rhetorics )

Heh heh, thanks.

[BulletMagnet]

If he was a real Christian he would give up the Muslim name.

If he was a "real Christian" he (and all the rest) wouldn't be involved in politics at all, considering that Jesus outright refused to get into it, even when people tried to force him. The whole idea of Christianity is rule directly under God's standards (heck, you're Jewish - remember what God said when the people kept begging Samuel for a king?) - the whole concept of religious politics, especially when it comes to Christianity, is an enormous sham - his name is the least of my concerns in that area.

I personally wouldn't want him as President, too young and not enough experience.

Do you offer equal credence to the accusation against Clinton that she's "too established?" if so, then what amount of "experience" makes you worth voting for? Granted, there are plenty of things about both candidates that I don't like, but their amount of time in politics, as far as I'm concerned, is hardly worth mentioning.

That means Decmocrats at the time liked his ideas. And today a bunch of Democrats still like him. Hell even Obama credit him once.

If you read the "Reagan" comments they're not quite what the press has interpreted them as (today's Daily Howler dissembles it rather nicely), though I still consider them ill-advised, and one of the reasons I'm not nearly as willing to accept Obama's rhetoric on its face as easily as most have.

Because John Kerry was a fucking idiot. Bush was bad enough, but John Kerry, come on.

Though I'm certainly no Kerry fanatic, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that he (or nearly anyone, for that matter) could have done much worse than Bush was already doing. Seriously, if you want to call someone a "f-ing idiot," Bush is about the least favorable comparison you could make. And the fact remains that, just as it was with Gore, a lot of the "criticisms" of him were pulled out of someone's backside.

Hell he supports Obama and not his own running mate Edward.

How is this a talking point against him? If he supported Edwards he'd be accused of "blind loyalty" - although not as drastic a case as the Clintons or Gore, Kerry is another "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" type as far as the pundits are concerned.

Because it's in their mind set that I'm never going to be someone.

Because they think they can get into college by Sports.

Once again, how do these two comments gel? They've already given up, yet they're hoping to hit it big in the NBA? Obviously they're willing to work plenty hard when it comes to that dream - why is it that most of them don't consider academic work a doable avenue for them? Because they're inherently less capable in that area, or because they're at a societal disadvantage from the start, and discouraged to pursue those goals more and more as they progress through the schools?

There's no barriers for them. No one is stopping them for a education.

Yeah, the Jim Crow laws are (technically) gone, but the "barriers" go a lot deeper than that - that's a whole other topic, and one that I've already commented about on here in the past.

If people like you hate Rush with a passion, why no liberal radio stations even comes close to his ratings?

You're ignoring my question - why should we assume that just because something more popular it's also got more inherent worth than something else? I certainly hope you perused the list of Limbaugh-isms I linked to in my previous post...and I challenge you to find a "media liberal" with a list that long.

CNN except for Lou Dobbs, and just about everyone on MSNBC. Very liberal on MSNBC.

I don't know how else to put this - what in heaven's name have you been doing, living under a rock? Have you heard anything about the backlash which finally emerged from the left against Chris Matthews, after he'd been making insulting, sexist, and downright false statements about Democrats for YEARS? Russert, in particular, isn't much better...get into Keith Olbermann and Jim Abrams and then I might agree (to a point), but the VAST majority of the voices on cable news (and network news and in print, while we're at it) are anything BUT liberal. Seriously, Fighter, the whole thing is owned by corporate interests - do you honestly expect them to lean liberal? Especially to the point where a joke like Fox News can label itself a "balance" to them?

Yes he's liberal (and he supports Obama BTW).

You've apparently never seen him talk about McCain or Giuliani. And no one with a penchant for "liberal" guests could ever stomach inviting total wastes of space like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson on as often as he does.

If America is a democracy, then stop this mess, that's all.

If things keep going the way they are now, we'll probably cease to be a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word before very long.