Election 2009 U.S.A. « Borne Games Forum

Magical rainbow ponies

Borne Games Forum » Serious Business

Election 2009 U.S.A.

(206 posts) (14 voices)

Started 4 years ago by FairlyObvious
Latest reply from Ekku

Tags:

12…11 Next »

FairlyObvious
Hotness
Post Count: 820

So everyone knows (I think) that we are down to three candidates for the presidential race. McCain, Obama, and Clinton . . .

is no one else disappointed? That line up kind of makes me shameful as an American. I might end up voting independent because I don't know is really qualified for the job (hopefully the independent is). I've found that soldiers tend to rally around McCain because he's a veteran of Vietnam. Clinton . . . well . . . she is the only one holding herself afloat right now. Then there is Obama who has little to know experience but just happens to be a good speaker.
Not to mention the entire "I'll get into the presidency and pull EVERYONE out of Iraq" is absolutely ridiculous. Which seems to be the line that Obama and Clinton are trying to feed . . . McCain is the only one who wants to stay in Iraq to at least leave some level of order there.

I feel rather jipped. =/

Every girl loves a man in fancy pants! =)

Posted 4 years ago #
Nyubis
Nyubis of Strata
Post Count: 9090

I aint American, but while watching TV, it seems that Clinton just reads a bunch of papers, and is a puppet of her husband and entourage, while Obama seems a natural leader and a born politician.
He has his opinion and makes his own decisions, which aren't commanded by his staff. And mcCain is a copy of bush, he has the same face that excells in hiding lies.
He has the same programme, and I think the last thing America needs is a second Bush-government.

And about Iraq... some (racist) soldiers really make abuse of the situation.
And then there's still the fact that Bush began war with Iraq just for the oil.
All the reports mention that Iraq was no real threat for America.

Note: part credit for this text goes to my bro, who would make a good politician as well.

Not in cruelty
Not in wrath
the Reaper came today.

An angel visited
this gray path
And took the cube away.

Posted 4 years ago #

Private
FairlyObvious
Hotness
Post Count: 820

I'm iffy about Obama for several reasons, I don't want him getting his experience in the presidency. He needs experience BEFORE the presidency. He also is never clear on where he stands on things. I've watched him in debates and he tends to falter when it comes to really addressing issues. He kind of plays it safe and I don't really like that. Not to mention his first role in politics was playing a Chicago vote hustler for Bill Clinton. He compares himself to Abraham Lincoln, which is kind of ridiculous because Lincoln rose from poverty into the presidency. Obama lived in Hawaii and went to a private academy along with the Hawaiian Royal children.
He wants to meet with the Iranian president, he doesn't have enough experience to handle the issues with the Mideast, he clearly does not understand the war on terror, not to mention the church he's been attending for a number of years houses a pastor who is extremely anti-semitic, racist, and anti-american. Not to mention the entire situation with his wife telling her "people" to put more "whites" on the stage behind her kind of disturbs me.
Doesn't really put Obama too high on my list.

Also my brother is a solder, who actually is in Iraq, I also have a few marine friends and a cousin who served there. I can tell you that none of them think they were over there without reason. Despite what the media frenzy pushes out, they are saving lives. They like McCain because he HAS war experience and he WON'T pull the troops out. I can also tell you that they are from the SOUTH and are NOT racist. Soldiers have to serve with people of all nationalities, ethnicities, and races. And trust me, if they say anything that stoops to that level they will get in . . . well let's just say "trouble" with people who consider their fellow soldiers to be their "brothers-in-arms" which is a common belief.

Every girl loves a man in fancy pants! =)

Posted 4 years ago #

Secret
Nyubis
Nyubis of Strata
Post Count: 9090

Okay, you make a point.
Obama is a bit too unexperienced to rule such an important country,
but he's still better than the other two competitors,
which means i agree with your point of shame about the line-up.

but with reports i mean official documents, investigations of the government itself that say that there wasn't any evidence of chemical weapons and a threat for the USA.
The uncontrolled aggressivity is not our thought about THE soldier,
but there are video tapes and such that prove that there have been unappropriate behavior of some soldiers, like in Abu Graib, which was horrible..
but I have great respect for the US soldiers, I don't see the senators themselves risk their lives.. that's my point, would they have voted for the war if they had to go themselves, or their sons?

Credit goes to my future-politician brother for this text (aigan).
P.S. cool new user pic

Not in cruelty
Not in wrath
the Reaper came today.

An angel visited
this gray path
And took the cube away.

Posted 4 years ago #

Register
FairlyObvious
Hotness
Post Count: 820

"This article concerns the Iraqi government's use, possession, and alleged intention of acquiring more types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. During his reign of several decades, he was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against civilians and in the Iran-Iraq War. Following the 1991 Gulf War he also engaged in a decade-long confrontation with the United Nations and its weapons inspectors, which ended in the 2003 invasion by the United States."

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Legal justification

On 17 March 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply".
The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply as the US invasion made it a moot point. American President George W. Bush stated that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to step down and leave Iraq.[58] As the deadline approached, the US announced that forces would be sent to verify his disarmament and a transition to a new government

We did have reason to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction present because we had been threatened by them and they were known to have been used. When they were invaded nuclear facilities were found looted and whatever they had contained had been removed.

And trust me whatever the small portion of soldier abuse that occurred, was nothing compared to what the people endured under Sadaam Hussein.
And actually I have heard soldiers state "We should've gone in earlier"

P.S. Thanks

Every girl loves a man in fancy pants! =)

Posted 4 years ago #
Nyubis
Nyubis of Strata
Post Count: 9090

Okay, there WAS a reason to go to Iraq, but that was also under Saddam's presidency.
But apart from this, I still think that leaving some soldiers in Iraq is McCain's only good point. And Obama has more good points. His only minus is some lack in exp. But he still owns McCain.

This text was from ME, not from my brother.

Not in cruelty
Not in wrath
the Reaper came today.

An angel visited
this gray path
And took the cube away.

Posted 4 years ago #
WJUK
The Lone Ranger
Post Count: 13501

I don't live in the US (as you may know by now) but I largely agree with your thoughts. This election is quite important, and can have shockwaves around the world. Even here, in good 'ol England, they'll be some sort of influence due to the outcome of this.

I believe that the US soldiers (and soldiers from other countries) should at least keep some sort of military presence in Iraq. You've got to finish what you started. Don't you think it's a bit selfish to walk in, saying that you're potentially stopping the use of chemical/nuclear weapons, then to walk out several years later leaving the place even worse than it was before. Sure, Saddam was a dictator and a really bad man but at least he managed to contain order in the place (using an iron fist - which I don't support btw). I feel that the invasion of Iraq was just on many levels, but the lack of planning beforehand was a bit shocking.

Ok, Saddam has been captured. We've got Iraq. What now?
For a while, it seemed to me that we weren't sure what we should do with the place. Hand it back to the Iraqi's and let them handle the rebuilding of their country themselves? Continue to stay there and help them rebuild their country?

Anyway, I'm going off-topic again. Slightly, since the subject of Iraq is important to the election race. I'm unsure who really deserves to win this, the limelight has really been shone mainly on Clinton and Obama and out of them two, I believe Obama should win. I'm not to sure why, it's just a gut feeling. I don't have too much information on McCain, but from the information you've provided me here he seems to express different views on many matters.

Ultimately, I guess it's up to the Americans to decide by themselves through voting.

Boy, that was a long post...

Don't click here

Posted 4 years ago #
DrNeroCF
aka Brad Borne
Post Count: 703

I really like hearing non-Americans' views on our politics, and anything that's not 'OMG BUSH SUX LAWLZ like you hear all over the internet is refreshing.

I really don't like any of the current candidates, honestly. The techies seem infatuated with Obama, which I really can't understand. I mean, the guy is definitely a nerd, but am I the only one who hears nothing come out of his mouth other than exactly what he knows what the people questioning him want to hear? How much integrity can you actually have if you never say no? While I will admit that he's 'an incredible orator' as they say (I would just say 'he speaks good,' but apparently they feel the need to prove themselves smart AND democratic at the same time...), I've never heard any substance behind his words. When Obama goes through his policies, he sounds like he's reading through a checklist of what a candidate should say. Yes, it may just be a gut feeling, but I've heard people say that if you read his speeches without the 'speech'ing, there's nothing special there. I've watch the man flat out talk for minutes and just not say a single thing. And yes, he's black, kinda... Get over it.

Hilary... uh, well... she did this whole, you know, crusade against violent video games because of lobbyists, which tells me nothing more than she can be bought off quite easily for a cause that fails to get to the root of the problem, do actual research, admit that video games are played by adults, get the government to meddle with the market, or just plain pretend that unlocking the Hot Coffee mod in GTA:SA is easier than finding porn on the Internet or watching an R rated movie. UGH, IGNORANCE. As for being female, at this point, if she became president, would anyone think 'hey this is the first female president' or 'hey this is Hilary Clinton as president.'

McCain... Well I don't really care for him all that much (though he has a decent sense of humor)... Fred Thompson was just too awesome, anyone who could take a heated question and say, no, you're wrong, let me give you the right answer. And I've seen Ron Paul say some incredible things against abortion. Out of all the republican candidates... why McCain...?

Doodle, sketch, draw, design, fill notebooks with elaborate scenes, funny character designs, and gameplay ideas.
Find your own personal style and run with it. Craft characters and stories that you love.
Enjoy your own work, and donâ€™t be afraid to show it off. Create.

Posted 4 years ago #
Nyubis
Nyubis of Strata
Post Count: 9090

well I feel in the same way.
Obama is a born leader but hasn't got a real opinion on certain issues,
but the other two are even worse.. I think that Hilary just makes a fool out of herself, the way she fails in every way of giving the idea of "yeah, that's somebody who could take charge", she doesn't give a sense of authority at all.
and mcCain can be seen as just in other bush in every aspect. He's out of the question.
The last thing america needs, is another policy of war instead of using money on healthcare. If you make the comparison of US healthcare with Belgian healthcare -where I come from- is just ridiculous -no offense-. This needs to improve drastically, also the social inequality in suburbs like the Bronx needs to be taken care of.

written by my brother(he really doesnt stops lol )

Not in cruelty
Not in wrath
the Reaper came today.

An angel visited
this gray path
And took the cube away.

Posted 4 years ago #
FairlyObvious
Hotness
Post Count: 820

I can assure you that McCain is NOT another Bush. They don't take the same stance on certain issues (such as abortion) and he has more war experience then Bush. He's also not a "southern" Christian, he appeals more to the secular crowd rather then the conservative crowd.
You also have to remember that Bush is taking suggestions from General Petraeus on the war, he's listening to his soldiers before his politicians. That is NOT a flaw. He is halting withdrawal of troops from Iraq on his General's insistence. If anything Bush hasn't been aggressive enough, which is a positive towards McCain because he IS aggressive. He said himself "The only way to get out of Iraq is to win." and its TRUE. While I do not like McCain all that much I do like how in some ways he reminds me of General Patton (who was AMAZING).
Not to mention McCain would crush Obama in a debate, no question.
Social inequality? You do know that some people pan handle for a living? They CHOOSE to live like that, we don't do that for him. And you will find that anywhere not just in the United States.
And explain to me how it is better to have an inexperienced candidate come in in the middle of a war then to have McCain, an experienced politician, elected?

Nyubis, tell your brother is he wants to answer to register, because this talking through you thing is really annoying.

Every girl loves a man in fancy pants! =)

Posted 4 years ago #
Mistercheef
MacNinja
Post Count: 1189

all of the current electives have their own style and none are alike. i am a strict republic/conservative, and am not a big fan of either Clinton or Obama, and Mccaine is a POW so he knows a lot about war and stuff, and i actually feel like i trust him a lot. if i was old enough, i would probably vote for him. (even though he has a temper)

<img src="http

Posted 4 years ago #
The Bull
Member
Post Count: 8

objection accepted.
here i am, nyubis' brother.

McCain might be a war hero and expert, but such people should be in the army and not in the senate. nowadays, ruling a country has little to do with war in this world.
A candidate in europe would make a absolute fool out of himself if he mentions his quality as "war expert". this is not at all an issue in europe, but in US it seems an argument to make yourself a president.
you could mention that US is in a middle of a war and needs such people,
but why did the US take action concerning Iraq and not troops of the UN,
the US seems to think that they have to solve every conflict or threat in the world.

and you haven't answered my health care issue. i'll give some bizarre examples.
if a doctor in the US let's his patient die, he earns more money. some people haven't got acces to hospitals for some diseases, because they can't pay some thousand dollars to rich doctors who happen to be rather unreliable. Look at docter Nick from the simpsons, such doctors are -from things i have heard common courtesy in the US.
Those private hospitals can do whatever they want, the government rarely controls them.

kind regards,

nyubis' brother

you can say "your highness"

Posted 4 years ago #
FairlyObvious
Hotness
Post Count: 820

Check this out
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39559

I also said the simplest solution to FIXING our healthcare problem is simple, don't elect Hillary Clinton.

And what do you mean they STILL get paid if their patient dies? I can tell you that I have seen doctors go through hell for one of their patients and then go through hell when they LOSE a patient, are you saying they shouldn't get paid for rendering their services to the best of their ability? He doesn't earn "more money" from a patient's death.

Here are some things that McCain wants to do with healthcare:
Allow people to buy health insurance nationwide instead of limiting them to in-state companies, and permitting people to buy insurance through any organization or association they choose as well as through their employers or directly from an insurance company.

Provide tax credits of $2,500 to individuals and $5,000 to families as an incentive to help them buy insurance. All people would get the tax credit even if they get insurance through work or buy it on their own.

Support different methods of delivering care, including walk-in clinics in retail outlets across the country, and developing routes for cheaper generic versions of drugs to enter the U.S. market, including allowing for safe importation of drugs.

Every girl loves a man in fancy pants! =)

Posted 4 years ago #
FairlyObvious
Hotness
Post Count: 820

I would also like to point out that leading a country has MUCH to do with war. For instance there are several things that you do in war that correspond with leading a country.

- making split decisions
- courage under fire
- leading
- observing things from all angles and deciding what's the best way to attack
- having your own mind while being able to listen to those around you

The President IS the Commander in Chief, he MUST have some form of army experience. Otherwise you end up with what happened under Clinton, such things as Black Hawk Down where the soldiers don't get the equipment they need because the leader doesn't understand the NEED for it, soldiers die needlessly because he pulls out when they are SO close to getting their goal ready. You have no idea what's going to happen in the next ten years, you don't know what kind of leadership is needed. Especially with Iran making nuclear weapons and threatening their neighbors. The United States, I believe, with all of its power should take care of their neighbors the way we would expect our neighbors to take care of us.
After all, the U.S. would've have lost the Revolutionary War if it wasn't for the French.

Every girl loves a man in fancy pants! =)

Posted 4 years ago #
WJUK
The Lone Ranger
Post Count: 13501

War experience is important in leading a country, but it's not essential. There will probably be others around the president that will be able to support him with their opinions. Obviously, it would be better to have a president that can speak from experience and that would understand what the soldiers would need and what is needed to succeed in bringing Iraq to peace.

Don't click here

Posted 4 years ago #
Mistercheef
MacNinja
Post Count: 1189

well put WJUK and FO

<img src="http

Posted 4 years ago #
Nyubis
Nyubis of Strata
Post Count: 9090

War experience is important in leading a country, but it's not essential. There will probably be others around the president that will be able to support him with their opinions. Obviously, it would be better to have a president that can speak from experience and that would understand what the soldiers would need and what is needed to succeed in bringing Iraq to peace.

agreed. I still vote for Obama.

Not in cruelty
Not in wrath
the Reaper came today.

An angel visited
this gray path
And took the cube away.

Posted 4 years ago #
WJUK
The Lone Ranger
Post Count: 13501

Well, it wouldn't really matter who I would want to vote for as:

A) I'm not old enough
B) I don't live in the US

Don't click here

Posted 4 years ago #
FairlyObvious
Hotness
Post Count: 820

bah on Obama, that's like putting a preschooler in high school because he has experience with school.
Obama really is nothing but a celebrity, and I was discussing this with Brad and Obama always says "we need to change this, we need to change this" he never addresses how. He avoids questions and just talks. I can understand why he's such a great "orator" it's all talk. Listening to him gives me no sense of security or promise at all.

Every girl loves a man in fancy pants! =)

Posted 4 years ago #
WJUK
The Lone Ranger
Post Count: 13501

bah on Obama, that's like putting a preschooler in high school because he has experience with school.
Obama really is nothing but a celebrity, and I was discussing this with Brad and Obama always says "we need to change this, we need to change this" he never addresses how. He avoids questions and just talks. I can understand why he's such a great "orator" it's all talk. Listening to him gives me no sense of security or promise at all.

Well, one skill needed by presidents is charisma and being able to talk well. But it shouldn't be the only one.

Don't click here

Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12…11 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.