A Question For the Republicans... [Archive]

captainhampton

01/27/07, 03:24 PM

yay. well with Obama and Hilary as the front runners right now, I'd choose Obama over Hilary. While I don't agree with most of his views, he seems genuine. Hilary just seems to play politics to me and just says what will get her more votes. and i don't like her.

People like Obama, he has the charisma and I think that could be the difference come '08. As much as people disliked Bush in '04, many democrats did not like Kerry just based on his smug personality.

Rodeo

01/27/07, 03:25 PM

With hilary you'd have Bill helping her a lot.

That would be a good thing.

Trainsaw

01/27/07, 03:26 PM

With hilary you'd have Bill helping her a lot.

That would be a good thing.

yeah and then for 8 more years we can hear...but but but Clinton!

Dean Wormer

01/27/07, 03:26 PM

the classic, 9 out of 10 times the person that says it knows very little to nothing about her policies, not calling you out, this is in general

No, I completely agree with you. However, I feel that I do understand politics to a degree and I just think that she doesn't deserve to be there. You are totally right about most people not knowing anything about her though.

Rodeo

01/27/07, 03:28 PM

yeah and then for 8 more years we can hear...but but but Clinton!

I thought elections were every 4? Think shes a shoe-in for re-election?

Trainsaw

01/27/07, 03:33 PM

I thought elections were every 4? Think shes a shoe-in for re-election?

nah i was just using a general #, basically the number of years bush has been or will have been in office and people have been using the but but clinton remark

Jason Tate

01/27/07, 03:34 PM

No, I completely agree with you. However, I feel that I do understand politics to a degree and I just think that she doesn't deserve to be there. You are totally right about most people not knowing anything about her though.
What do you mean by "deserve"? Her resume's not bad. I won't vote for her in a primary -- but I'd take her over some of the other candidates. Mostly she annoys the shit outta me though. Actually, 99% of the time that's the case.

Dean Wormer

01/27/07, 03:37 PM

What do you mean by "deserve"? Her resume's not bad. I won't vote for her in a primary -- but I'd take her over some of the other candidates. Mostly she annoys the shit outta me though. Actually, 99% of the time that's the case.

It just seems like in order to be President you have to be among the heavy hitters, for lack of a better term. I don't feel that Hillary is up to the top of the political world yet. Maybe, I just don't want to believe that she is up with the elite, but I just don't think she has paid her dues politically to become the leader of the country. I kind of feel the same way about Obama too, even though I think he would make a great president. Just not yet.

Trainsaw

01/27/07, 03:37 PM

Out of all the candidates she would seem the most experienced, she is the only 1 that saw the inside workings of how a President handles things

Jason Tate

01/27/07, 03:46 PM

It just seems like in order to be President you have to be among the heavy hitters, for lack of a better term. I don't feel that Hillary is up to the top of the political world yet. Maybe, I just don't want to believe that she is up with the elite, but I just don't think she has paid her dues politically to become the leader of the country. I kind of feel the same way about Obama too, even though I think he would make a great president. Just not yet.
Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, Benjamin Harrison, John Quincy Adams, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Jackson and James Monroe all had less congressional experience and were elected President.

These are the Presidents who spent time in the Congress who were elected and does not include those who never spent time in Congress (Clinton, G.W. Bush, etc.).

I disagree with your statement purely out of the principle of historical relevance.

Dean Wormer

01/27/07, 03:52 PM

Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, Benjamin Harrison, John Quincy Adams, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Jackson and James Monroe all had less congressional experience and were elected President.

These are the Presidents who spent time in the Congress who were elected and does not include those who never spent time in Congress (Clinton, G.W. Bush, etc.).

I disagree with your statement purely out of the principle of historical relevance.

Yeah, after I wrote it I kind of disagreed with myself a little too. However, for some reason, I just feel that there could be a better choice somewhere and I'm worried that the Democrats are almost saying "She'll do just fine" too early. Maybe there isn't a better choice and I just have some sort of personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton becoming President.

Clinton and Bush were in charge of states, granted Governor is seemingly less important than a seat in Congress.

Trainsaw

01/27/07, 03:53 PM

You think there would be this much against Condoleezza Rice if she decided to run for President?

Dean Wormer

01/27/07, 03:54 PM

You think there would be this much against Condoleezza Rice if she decided to run for President?

Even more.

Jason Tate

01/27/07, 03:55 PM

Yeah, after I wrote it I kind of disagreed with myself a little too. However, for some reason, I just feel that there could be a better choice somewhere and I'm worried that the Democrats are almost saying "She'll do just fine" too early. Maybe there isn't a better choice and I just have some sort of personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton becoming President.

Clinton and Bush were in charge of states, granted Governor is seemingly less important than a seat in Congress.
I agree, I'm not a fan at all.

Dean Wormer

01/27/07, 03:58 PM

On a side note, of those Presidents you named, didn't all of them except for Monroe and Adams not finish their terms for one reason or another. Not to try and curse another Clinton presidency or anything.

birdman

01/27/07, 05:50 PM

I would rather see Obama than Hilary...I think that Obama is a little too liberal for my taste but he is a sharp dude.

Having said that, I don't think that Obama will get the nominaiton...he is too inexperienced.

gonz

01/27/07, 05:56 PM

Obama

and to whoever asked, Dennis is running again

thejetstolehome

01/27/07, 05:59 PM

Even more.

agreed. i also think it'd be easier to go after Rice becuase of her positions of prominence in the Bush Administration over the last 7 years.

TranscendTrends

01/27/07, 06:25 PM

aminorthreat55

01/27/07, 10:18 PM

Jason Tate

01/27/07, 10:20 PM

That's my line.
:-D

QFT!

icameonherface

01/28/07, 08:51 AM

You think there would be this much against Condoleezza Rice if she decided to run for President?

more...and I'd pick Obama

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 01:59 PM

Seeing that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I am going to answer and say..

Barack Obama. Like others said, he is genuine. I think that he really does want to run to HELP our country whereas Hilary is running just so she can be President...make a legacy, go down in history books, whatever you want to call it. Regardless of her views on policies, I don't like her because of her attitude. She he is just very fake to me.

thejetstolehome

01/28/07, 02:07 PM

hate to break it to you, but just about every politician is fake. and i'm not Hillary's biggest fan but i highly doubt she's running "just because."

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 02:11 PM

Well of course most politicians are fake. I would be lying to myself if I thought they weren't. What I was trying to say was that Hilary's bid is not nearly as genuine as Obama's.

thejetstolehome

01/28/07, 02:15 PM

icameonherface

01/28/07, 02:21 PM

hate to break it to you, but just about every politician is fake. and i'm not Hillary's biggest fan but i highly doubt she's running "just because."

Eh, not everyone. Just the most recent ones we've become accustomed too.

thejetstolehome

01/28/07, 02:23 PM

Eh, not everyone. Just the most recent ones we've become accustomed too.

yea, i guess i'm jaded. :shrug:

atticus1492

01/28/07, 02:23 PM

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 02:28 PM

what makes it so in-genuine? she's running for the same reasons everyone else is. she just has this stigma of being a total bitch so people think she's in it for all the wrong reasons. i mean, i'd much prefer Obama to get the nomination and win but i don't think Hil's doing it just so she can say she ran.

and, totally off topic, i'm sick of these fucking eHarmony ads. sorry, it was on TV as i was typing this and getting me so fuckin' mad.

You nailed it...it is her attitude that makes it seem like she doesn't want it. I know that she isn't really a bitch...she mostly just sucks at public speaking. And I don't think she's in it for the wrong reasons, she just isn't showing us why she wants it. Does that make sense? I am pretty sure that we agree on this whole Clinton v. Obama deal.

Haha..those commercials are pretty damn obnoxious. I am sick of the McDonald's commercial where the guys are being rude to each other, but it is somehow supposed to be funny?? 'I'm not listening to anything you say so I'm just gonna look at my watch and pretend I have somewhere to be' Grr.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 02:34 PM

All I know is from personal experiences, politics are not that easy.

My dad is a councilman in my town and I know he is just driven nuts with the nonsense that goes on by the citizens of the town and the outrageous requests they have, but then they also want taxes lowered and all this other shit. It is hard to please everyone when no one compromises.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 02:42 PM

Oh definitely. It's a tough job, it would just be great if more people stuck in it for the POLITICS though, and not the money.

thatwasamoment

01/28/07, 02:43 PM

Oh definitely. It's a tough job, it would just be great if more people stuck in it for the POLITICS though, and not the money.
a politican's salary isn't too much.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

01/28/07, 02:46 PM

a politican's salary isn't too much.

true, but the point is today we have a lot of "professional politicians" instead of serving citizens.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 02:48 PM

a politican's salary isn't too much.

My dad gets paid like 7,000$ in my town...granted it is small.

However the benefits you get are amazingly nice. Salary is 165,000 for the senate I know.

thatwasamoment

01/28/07, 02:48 PM

true, but the point is today we have a lot of "professional politicians" instead of serving citizens.Very true. My brother included. He's in the military just because it will look good on his record when he runs for office.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 02:49 PM

a politican's salary isn't too much.

I wasn't talking about salary :o

Haha but I agree. There are people who are politicians for a living. It has come a long way from people serving to help out their fellow citizens.

xshady121

01/28/07, 02:58 PM

Anyone but Hillary.

She has no political experience. Senator for 6 years? Give me a break. She's done nothing for NY. She merely holds that title as a prerequisite for the presidency. Her only major job during Clinton's years as presidentwas to head up the Health Care reform. She came up with an idea so ludicros that it was instantly rejected and buried to try to get people to forget it. Honestly, it couldn''t pass the democratic controlled senate. All of her "proposals" to help NY state involve taking away money from those who need it most. Face it, in her hometown of chappaqua, a family cant survive on 70,000 a year total, but thats what she wnats to call "rich". I live about an hour from the city, and the smallest shack here is a minumum of 580,000 Not to mention her inconsistancies with supporting the war. You either support it or you don't. Don't say we were misled, cause we were misled into Vietnam and WWI in the past (as im sure others), and yet Wilson is considered to be a great leader. She says shes running on the Health Care platform, but when Bush proposed a health care "reform" (i use reform lightly here, becuase its not so much as it is new measures), she refused to even clap while Polosi and the rest of the Dems (barack obama included) did.. She paints Bush to be so anti-american that it's impossible to take what she says without a grain of salt.. I'm not against the democrats or liberals in any way, infact I'd rather see McCain or Giuliani ,,two liberal republicans, than I would someone much more conservative. America needs a leader like Regan or Clinton...not someone who will just tear us further apart...

Dean Wormer

01/28/07, 03:13 PM

Wait, wait, wait.... misled into WWII? We knew what we were doing there.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 03:20 PM

Wait, wait, wait.... misled into WWII? We knew what we were doing there.

Good point...Pearl Harbor=Us going into WWII. The End. There is no misleading there, at all.

xshady121

01/28/07, 03:22 PM

Wait, wait, wait.... misled into WWII? We knew what we were doing there.
my bad, i corrected it.. .I was thinking WWI..

I stand corrected.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 03:35 PM

my bad, i corrected it.. .I was thinking WWI..

I stand corrected.

we weren't that involved in world war 1

Good point...Pearl Harbor=Us going into WWII. The End. There is no misleading there, at all.

Pearl Harbor is considered our 9/11 as comparing it to well the government let it happen to get into the war.

war also helped stimulate the economy.

xshady121

01/28/07, 03:38 PM

we weren't that involved in world war 1

Pearl Harbor is considered our 9/11 as comparing it to well the government let it happen to get into the war.

war also helped stimulate the economy.

Wasn't WMDs the reason we went and not 9/11

Maybe 9/11 was Afgahnstan, but were for the most part out of there and have been (atleast when compared to Iraqi occupation)

icameonherface

01/28/07, 03:48 PM

Wasn't WMDs the reason we went and not 9/11

Maybe 9/11 was Afgahnstan, but were for the most part out of there and have been (atleast when compared to Iraqi occupation)

and saddam was giving $$ to terrorist cells. 9/11 was used to goto the middle east.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 03:53 PM

Pearl Harbor is considered our 9/11 as comparing it to well the government let it happen to get into the war.

war also helped stimulate the economy.

That's debatable. Saying that the gov't let Pearl Harbor happen is silly. There's little eveidence to back that up. Just the same as there is little eveidence that we let 9/11 happen. I am not saying that it isn't partly true, just that you can't compare them that simply.

The only thing war stimulated was Cheney's wallet and gas prices. I can't see any positve outcomes of this war right now.

xshady121

01/28/07, 03:57 PM

trindaddy

01/28/07, 04:03 PM

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:04 PM

Really? Halliburton has done very well throughout the war..and our economy has not. I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:07 PM

this is a retarded topic imo. i dont understand why people vote within realms of political parties. im gonna vote for whoever i think will be the best person to run the country. sure i lean conservative, but that doesn't mean im gonna vote republican, especially if obama gets the nod

That's how I feel about it. I'm not the kinda person that is gonna vote all Republican if I'm Republican...and vice versa. I think it should be about who will do the best job, and who will work in a bipartisan way to make sure that they are leading FOR the people, since that is what they are supposed to do anyway.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:19 PM

saying the only thing it did was stimulate money in Cheney's wallet is the most ignorant statement one can make.
No, denying that it did -- which is an undeniable fact -- is more ignorant IMO. Didn't say it was the only thing it DID, said it was the only thing it STIMULATED.

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:21 PM

Really? Halliburton has done very well throughout the war..and our economy has not. I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong

i siad, to say the only thing is the lining of his pockets would be ridiculous and it is.

have you ever taken economics? Do you not know how the nation goes through 8-10 year cycles of economic depression, with the econonmy falling and rebounding.. It's cyclical (do you remember the late 80s?) , it recovered toward Bush I's last year, and it started going down again during the end of Clinton's tenure (8 years) (thus unemployment rates were at an all time high after the dot com bubble inevitably burst..) and really went down the drain toward the begining of Bush's tenure. The economy is slowly starting to reverse the trend now, as per the cycle. This is evident in the fact that unemployment is at i believe 4.5 % , with it being around 5% in July alone (and a healthy economy around 4%).. So, I would kind of like to know how the economy being somewhat in the whole has to do soley on good ol' George W. The economy is cyclical, and it's a down time right now..

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:23 PM

No, denying that it did -- which is an undeniable fact -- is more ignorant IMO. Didn't say it was the only thing it DID, said it was the only thing it STIMULATED.

tate, i'm not denying that it did, I was replying to "only"... i should have bolded it?

I mean, a man of Cheney's position should of known better to get involved in such a blatant conflict of interest

icameonherface

01/28/07, 04:26 PM

That's debatable. Saying that the gov't let Pearl Harbor happen is silly. There's little eveidence to back that up. Just the same as there is little eveidence that we let 9/11 happen. I am not saying that it isn't partly true, just that you can't compare them that simply.

The only thing war stimulated was Cheney's wallet and gas prices. I can't see any positve outcomes of this war right now.

Become more educated on that subject regarding Cheyney and gas prices. Gas prices rose because our dollar is worth less, along with OPEC raising prices. Remember, we rely on foreign oil, not domestic. USA has plenty of oil, but we keep it for reserves and sell it to Japan - thanks to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Regarding Cheney, HAL's stock is around the same price it was in 1997. It went up to 40$ per share, but is back down 30$ per share. Also, Cheney cut almost all or all his ties with the company prior to the 2000 election.

Regarding Pearl Harbor, I am not saying it was true, but we were looking to get into World War 2 for awhile before Pearl Harbor. We were sending pilots to fly for the RAF and Canada's airforce because they were easier to disguise more than companies of troops. We were also sending supplies to the ally forces. Of course, Pearl Harbor is a conspiracy, but it is the "mother of conspiracies"

icameonherface

01/28/07, 04:29 PM

Really? Halliburton has done very well throughout the war..and our economy has not. I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong

yes because they got a governmental contract.

War helps bring countries out of recessions and depressions (don't think it was FDR's new deal).

On a broad sense our economy is not that bad. Our dollar is strengthening, more people are investing, etc.

The problem now is we have to deal with an emerging super power in China.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:30 PM

tate, i'm not denying that it did, I was replying to "only"... i should have bolded it?

I mean, a man of Cheney's position should of known better to get involved in such a blatant conflict of interest
Well she said "only stimulated" - not the only thing it did.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:31 PM

yes because they got a governmental contract.

War helps bring countries out of recessions and depressions (don't think it was FDR's new deal).

On a broad sense our economy is not that bad. Our dollar is strengthening, more people are investing, etc.

The problem now is we have to deal with an emerging super power in China.
A no-bid government contract.

And it's a good thing that's not what "the economy" means.

That's not a problem.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 04:31 PM

tate, i'm not denying that it did, I was replying to "only"... i should have bolded it?

I mean, a man of Cheney's position should of known better to get involved in such a blatant conflict of interest

thats why he cut most of his ties in August 2000 before the November election.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:33 PM

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:33 PM

thats why he cut most of his ties in August 2000 before the November election.
A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml)

Facts disagree with you.

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:37 PM

thats why he cut most of his ties in August 2000 before the November election.

Still, you would think someone like him would no not to even approach the subject.. If you do let Hallburton get it, atleast make it a bid.. To give a no bid contract to your former company to which you hold stock ties too.. That's a little fishy...

I'm a republican for the war, and I think that Cheney fucked up there.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 04:38 PM

A no-bid government contract.

And it's a good thing that's not what "the economy" means.

That's not a problem.

Well no, it really isn't a problem, it is a good thing, but it is a factor that works against our economy.

Our interest rates need to rise a little to help control inflation. There is too much paper money in circulation.

I know I said on a broad sense, there is a lot more to it, Real GDP, money supply, unemployment, S&P 500, building permits, insurance claims, etc.

Overall the economy is not too bad right now.

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:38 PM

But to get this thread back on topic.. election 2008- say a democrat wins.. Who and why?

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:41 PM

Thank you Tate, that is exactly what I meant... It would be etremely ignorant of me to say that war only did 2 things.

So, I would kind of like to know how the economy being somewhat in the whole has to do soley on good ol' George W.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never once said that the deficcit is ONLY because of the president or the war. In fact, I didn't mention the deficit AT ALL.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:42 PM

Become more educated on that subject regarding Cheyney and gas prices. Gas prices rose because our dollar is worth less, along with OPEC raising prices. Remember, we rely on foreign oil, not domestic. USA has plenty of oil, but we keep it for reserves and sell it to Japan - thanks to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Regarding Cheney, HAL's stock is around the same price it was in 1997. It went up to 40$ per share, but is back down 30$ per share. Also, Cheney cut almost all or all his ties with the company prior to the 2000 election.

Regarding Pearl Harbor, I am not saying it was true, but we were looking to get into World War 2 for awhile before Pearl Harbor. We were sending pilots to fly for the RAF and Canada's airforce because they were easier to disguise more than companies of troops. We were also sending supplies to the ally forces. Of course, Pearl Harbor is a conspiracy, but it is the "mother of conspiracies"

I'd say JESUS is the "mother (father?) of conspiricies"

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:44 PM

Well no, it really isn't a problem, it is a good thing, but it is a factor that works against our economy.

Our interest rates need to rise a little to help control inflation. There is too much paper money in circulation.

I know I said on a broad sense, there is a lot more to it, Real GDP, money supply, unemployment, S&P 500, building permits, insurance claims, etc.

Overall the economy is not too bad right now.

Eh, that's still not the economy. And overall, the economy is not bad, for roughly everyone except the lower and middle class. The problem is that they're the ones that matter, and are over looked. Looking at the "usual" economy indicators we can say, "sure the economy's doing okay," but if you look at the stats that matter (and are reflective) to the "working man" - it's not such a bright picture.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:44 PM

icameonherface

01/28/07, 04:44 PM

i siad, to say the only thing is the lining of his pockets would be ridiculous and it is.

have you ever taken economics? Do you not know how the nation goes through 8-10 year cycles of economic depression, with the econonmy falling and rebounding.. It's cyclical (do you remember the late 80s?) , it recovered toward Bush I's last year, and it started going down again during the end of Clinton's tenure (8 years) (thus unemployment rates were at an all time high after the dot com bubble inevitably burst..) and really went down the drain toward the begining of Bush's tenure. The economy is slowly starting to reverse the trend now, as per the cycle. This is evident in the fact that unemployment is at i believe 4.5 % , with it being around 5% in July alone (and a healthy economy around 4%).. So, I would kind of like to know how the economy being somewhat in the whole has to do soley on good ol' George W. The economy is cyclical, and it's a down time right now..

Yes and no. Unemployment less than 5% is not always a good thing. About 5% is considered full employment.

Yes, the economy did rebound in December or 1992 and fall in December of 2000, and it does work in cycles, but it doesn't always work in cycles and it is not always just 8-10 years. Clinton was president at the right time. The dot-com boom allowed for more receipts for the government to build a surplus.

The thing is there are more indicators then just unemployment. I think we may be at a sort of plateau right now with our defecit (though trade defecit was better last quarter).

Bush did not help with the defecit and it could prolong the recession because the Chinese bought US Treasuries.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:45 PM

But to get this thread back on topic.. election 2008- say a democrat wins.. Who and why?
Hahah, thread's been off topic for so long now. WHo do you say?

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:45 PM

You just proved MY point. Thanks...

Which point? THat Cheney fucked up? I'll agree with you there.

That the only positive thing the war has STIMULATED is money in his pocketss? I'm not so sure I can agree with you.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:46 PM

Yes and no. Unemployment less than 5% is not always a good thing. About 5% is considered full employment.

Yes, the economy did rebound in December or 1992 and fall in December of 2000, and it does work in cycles, but it doesn't always work in cycles and it is not always just 8-10 years. Clinton was president at the right time. The dot-com boom allowed for more receipts for the government to build a surplus.

The thing is there are more indicators then just unemployment. I think we may be at a sort of plateau right now with our defecit (though trade defecit was better last quarter).

Bush did not help with the defecit and it could prolong the recession because the Chinese bought US Treasuries.
Summed up: The Chinese own us.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:46 PM

Oh and shady...I am in an Econ class right now.
But it has nothing to do with my knowledge regarding Halliburton and the fact that oil companies are screwing us over...

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:47 PM

Which point? THat Cheney fucked up? I'll agree with you there.

That the only positive thing the war has STIMULATED is money in his pocketss? I'm not so sure I can agree with you.
What else has it stimulated? Hate for our country, disapproval and mistrust of our government?

:shrug:

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:49 PM

Which point? THat Cheney fucked up? I'll agree with you there.

That the only positive thing the war has STIMULATED is money in his pocketss? I'm not so sure I can agree with you.

Okay well let me rephrase this...I don't think war has stimulated anything GOOD in our country.
EXCEPT that more and more people have become politically involved;younger people too. And that is the best thing that could have happened.

Either way, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:51 PM

Hahah, thread's been off topic for so long now. WHo do you say?

I don't know. I wouldn't mind seeing McCain, but then again he's a republican, But i think he has teh ability to get alot of liberal votes. He kind of seems to be what america needs right now. I mean, he doesn't take the republicans shit, and he isn't afraid to tell the democrats their right.

To vote someone in now who is so far leaning to one side (like George Bush) would be ridiculous.

I got to say thgouh, I don't know much about Obama, but from what I've heard he is pretty interesting. Especially, i believe, something about his policies when it comes to interest groups? Idk I'll have to check into that.. Definitly not Hillary though. I won't say she doesn't have the political expericance, because then that would be hippocritical to Obama, but I just don't feel she'd be right. She says she's fighting for Health Care, but she is so far 0-1 on healthcare, with the reform she led up in 93 failing before a democratic senate. I agree heatlhcare needs some sort of reform, but not on the nationwide level she wants.. Plus I think she is so one way on her ideology.. We need someone willing to work with both sides and sort of be like a mediatior.. America's too split at the moment.. Are there any democrats out there who can win but will be moderate? Edwards? I'm not really familiarwith his stances too mcuh..

aminorthreat55

01/28/07, 04:51 PM

Have YOU ever taken an economics course? Hahaha. Cause you're on the 101 level with that analysis there dude. Wait a few more years, and 4 or 5 more classes, before talking about it.
Haha seriously.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 04:52 PM

Still, you would think someone like him would no not to even approach the subject.. If you do let Hallburton get it, atleast make it a bid.. To give a no bid contract to your former company to which you hold stock ties too.. That's a little fishy...

I'm a republican for the war, and I think that Cheney fucked up there.

Yeah - I am not all about the no-bid contract, but Haliburton was used by other president's too. It wasn't just this administration. Cheney is not the only politician with stock in Haliburton.

A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml)

Facts disagree with you.

Regarding the deferred compensation, I've read it is a fixed payment agreed on. Meaning however well Haliburton does, he'd still receive the same money - similar to any other pension plan.

However he did exercise many of his stock options before being elected. That is true because as an insider he has to file this with the SEC and it becomes public information. Also, if you loo at a majority of his options, All but 33,000 are out of the money.

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:53 PM

Oh and shady...I am in an Econ class right now.
But it has nothing to do with my knowledge regarding Halliburton and the fact that oil companies are screwing us over...

Agreed the oil companies are screwing us over.. prices per barrel lower yet prices per gallon raise (atleast here in NY).. You have to wonder thoguh what part Washington has to do with all this. Interest groups...

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:54 PM

I don't know. I wouldn't mind seeing McCain, but then again he's a republican, But i think he has teh ability to get alot of liberal votes. He kind of seems to be what america needs right now. I mean, he doesn't take the republicans shit, and he isn't afraid to tell the democrats their right.

To vote someone in now who is so far leaning to one side (like George Bush) would be ridiculous.

I got to say thgouh, I don't know much about Obama, but from what I've heard he is pretty interesting. Especially, i believe, something about his policies when it comes to interest groups? Idk I'll have to check into that.. Definitly not Hillary though. I won't say she doesn't have the political expericance, because then that would be hippocritical to Obama, but I just don't feel she'd be right. She says she's fighting for Health Care, but she is so far 0-1 on healthcare, with the reform she led up in 93 failing before a democratic senate. I agree heatlhcare needs some sort of reform, but not on the nationwide level she wants.. Plus I think she is so one way on her ideology.. We need someone willing to work with both sides and sort of be like a mediatior.. America's too split at the moment.. Are there any democrats out there who can win but will be moderate? Edwards? I'm not really familiarwith his stances too mcuh..
Interesting.

I'm not a McCain fan (he's been on every side of this war thing, and I hate his current stance).

I'd highly recommend reading up more on Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/).

And everyone knows I'm not a Hillary fan; however, given the choice between her or the current Republican candidates, I'd probably plug my nose and vote for her.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:55 PM

Obama is very much like McCain in that he will agree with Republicans if he believes they are right and he will go against some Democratic policies. I think those men are evenly matched, except for obvious reasons, like popularity and experience.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 04:56 PM

Yeah - I am not all about the no-bid contract, but Haliburton was used by other president's too. It wasn't just this administration. Cheney is not the only politician with stock in Haliburton.

Obviously, but does that make any of them right? No. It just proves the corrupt system.

Regarding the deferred compensation, I've read it is a fixed payment agreed on. Meaning however well Haliburton does, he'd still receive the same money - similar to any other pension plan.

Did you even read the article I linked?

However he did exercise many of his stock options before being elected. That is true because as an insider he has to file this with the SEC and it becomes public information. Also, if you loo at a majority of his options, All but 33,000 are out of the money.

And this answers my above question: Obviously not.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 04:56 PM

Agreed the oil companies are screwing us over.. prices per barrel lower yet prices per gallon raise (atleast here in NY).. You have to wonder thoguh what part Washington has to do with all this. Interest groups...

It's doing the same thing in California...

icameonherface

01/28/07, 04:57 PM

Eh, that's still not the economy. And overall, the economy is not bad, for roughly everyone except the lower and middle class. The problem is that they're the ones that matter, and are over looked. Looking at the "usual" economy indicators we can say, "sure the economy's doing okay," but if you look at the stats that matter (and are reflective) to the "working man" - it's not such a bright picture.

Well the economy is better than it was a few years ago...So it is improved I guess we can say and that can be seen by the leading economic indicators that I've posted.

The biggest problem is underemployment, which as far as I know, there is no real statistical measure. It could be seen by a combination of technology, the recession, outsourcing, whatever.

I'd say JESUS is the "mother (father?) of conspiricies"

I didn't coin it that, historians did.

xshady121

01/28/07, 04:58 PM

Interesting.

I'm not a McCain fan (he's been on every side of this war thing, and I hate his current stance).

I'd highly recommend reading up more on Obama (http://obama.senate.gov/).

And everyone knows I'm not a Hillary fan; however, given the choice between her or the current Republican candidates, I'd probably plug my nose and vote for her.

well , if your going on the war alone, Hillary has voted for it up until late 05 I believe..

my only fear is that if a democrat comes in and pulls the troops out all at once rather then a fased recall, that Iraq's "democracy" will fall and another regime like Saddaam's will emerge.

I'd really like to see Bush pull the troops out (meaning sometime before his times up, not nesciarly now)., but he's so adamant against it and "finishing" the job, that he needs to open his eyes. This Iraq study group isn't necissarly a bad thing.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:00 PM

Yes, I know. And I believe that the historians are mistaken...
Then again, Jesus isn't so much of a conspiracies as it is just a highly debated event...

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:02 PM

well , if your going on the war alone, Hillary has voted for it up until late 05 I believe..

my only fear is that if a democrat comes in and pulls the troops out all at once rather then a fased recall, that Iraq's "democracy" will fall and another regime like Saddaam's will emerge.

I'd really like to see Bush pull the troops out (meaning sometime before his times up, not nesciarly now)., but he's so adamant against it and "finishing" the job, that he needs to open his eyes. This Iraq study group isn't necissarly a bad thing.
I've yet to see any Democrat (congress[wo]man) propose an "immediate" withdrawal.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:03 PM

Yes, I know. And I believe that the historians are mistaken...
Then again, Jesus isn't so much of a conspiracies as it is just a highly debated event...
Well, there's not really much of a debate. You believe he's the son of God or you don't. The debate doesn't really take place among the more educated - because it's faith.

He's God's son, or he's not. Period.

xshady121

01/28/07, 05:04 PM

Okay well let me rephrase this...I don't think war has stimulated anything GOOD in our country.
EXCEPT that more and more people have become politically involved;younger people too. And that is the best thing that could have happened.

Either way, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

Well, it's definitly had a negative impact on the country, but I'm sure there are some positives that came out of it. As stated above, war does help to boost the economy. Maybe it didn't do it as efficintly as it did during WWII, but it did. But was that worth it for therising oil prices, (which, from as far back as WWII always go up during a war. always.) ? I don't really think so.

And ofcourse young people becoming politically involved is good. If they actually read a paper and watch the news. But it's the people who come online or join a discussion in a classroom and say "anyone but hillary" or "impeach bush" and dont have a reason (which i dont know if its just here, but in NEW YORK we got both and people dont have a reason why there saying it).. that rightt here is pretty ignorant.. atleast know why you hate someone or why you support them.. So, It's good people get involved, but most young people in my schooll "think" there involved..

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:05 PM

Obviously, but does that make any of them right? No. It just proves the corrupt system.

No, it does not.

Did you even read the article I linked?
yeah, I did for the most part.

And this answers my above question: Obviously not.

I'm not quite sure the validity of this site, but it says some interesting things regarding the subject

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:06 PM

Well, there's not really much of a debate. You believe he's the son of God or you don't. The debate doesn't really take place among the more educated - because it's faith.

He's God's son, or he's not. Period.

My sister-in-law has a book of conspiracies that says that Jesus' Resurrection is the biggest conspiracy the world has ever seen.

Which is true..think of how many millions of people have died in the name of God and Christianity.

xshady121

01/28/07, 05:06 PM

I've yet to see any Democrat (congress[wo]man) propose an "immediate" withdrawal.

no, but it happened in Vietnam (maybe not immediate, but too quick without a plan).. and Sout Vietnam fell. Plus, it's what the public wants. Didn't Cindy Shehan get mad at the democrats because they didn't withdraw the troops once they took over office. Politicans aren't stupid. They know whats practical and what's not.. but regardless public opinon right now is "bring the troops home. now".. and if you get a president who answers that, Iraq's "democracy" will fall. period.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:07 PM

Well, there's not really much of a debate. You believe he's the son of God or you don't. The debate doesn't really take place among the more educated - because it's faith.

He's God's son, or he's not. Period.

yeah pretty much. The dude was a real person.

The real conspiracy maybe is that he was more dark-skinned considering the region of the country he was from.

xshady121

01/28/07, 05:08 PM

No, it does not.

yeah, I did for the most part.

I'm not quite sure the validity of this site, but it says some interesting things regarding the subject

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

factcheck is pretty reputable, thoguh you probobly just found that link off of wiki (only reason i say that is becuase theres a big writeup in there about how cheney said "factcheck.com" instead of "factcheck.org" when .com was a pro-kerry site.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:08 PM

No, it does not.

yeah, I did for the most part.

I'm not quite sure the validity of this site, but it says some interesting things regarding the subject

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

How does it not?

Factcheck.org is a great website. It confers my original point -- that Cheney has ties to the company, I was never insinuating he'd be the one making the money for the no-bid contract, simply that it's not right that the "old boys network" continues unchecked in this country.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:08 PM

no, but it happened in Vietnam (maybe not immediate, but too quick without a plan).. and Sout Vietnam fell. Plus, it's what the public wants. Didn't Cindy Shehan get mad at the democrats because they didn't withdraw the troops once they took over office. Politicans aren't stupid. They know whats practical and what's not.. but regardless public opinon right now is "bring the troops home. now".. and if you get a president who answers that, Iraq's "democracy" will fall. period.

The problems with Iraq and Vietnam was there was no real exit plans...which is why any withdrawal looks too quick when you're losing.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:09 PM

factcheck is pretty reputable, thoguh you probobly just found that link off of wiki (only reason i say that is becuase theres a big writeup in there about how cheney said "factcheck.com" instead of "factcheck.org" when .com was a pro-kerry site.

no.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:09 PM

Well, it's definitly had a negative impact on the country, but I'm sure there are some positives that came out of it. As stated above, war does help to boost the economy. Maybe it didn't do it as efficintly as it did during WWII, but it did. But was that worth it for therising oil prices, (which, from as far back as WWII always go up during a war. always.) ? I don't really think so.

And ofcourse young people becoming politically involved is good. If they actually read a paper and watch the news. But it's the people who come online or join a discussion in a classroom and say "anyone but hillary" or "impeach bush" and dont have a reason (which i dont know if its just here, but in NEW YORK we got both and people dont have a reason why there saying it).. that rightt here is pretty ignorant.. atleast know why you hate someone or why you support them.. So, It's good people get involved, but most young people in my schooll "think" there involved..

I agree. People like that drive me insane. If you are going to have opinion, know WHY you have opinion...don't just repeat things you've heard others say, just because you think it sounds right.

xshady121

01/28/07, 05:11 PM

no.

hah alright, just wondering, cause before I was reading up on it and saw that...

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:11 PM

no, but it happened in Vietnam (maybe not immediate, but too quick without a plan).. and Sout Vietnam fell. Plus, it's what the public wants. Didn't Cindy Shehan get mad at the democrats because they didn't withdraw the troops once they took over office. Politicans aren't stupid. They know whats practical and what's not.. but regardless public opinon right now is "bring the troops home. now".. and if you get a president who answers that, Iraq's "democracy" will fall. period.
Well, the irony there is that by listening to our own democracy, we may fail another. That's funny (or sad) if you really think about it.

And again, I said politician. There are options for not sending more troops, and not bringing them all home. The happy medium can be reached.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:11 PM

yeah pretty much. The dude was a real person.

The real conspiracy maybe is that he was more dark-skinned considering the region of the country he was from.

Yeah, the pictures of Jesus as a white guy have always bugged me. Haha

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:12 PM

yeah pretty much. The dude was a real person.

The real conspiracy maybe is that he was more dark-skinned considering the region of the country he was from.
If anyone really thinks he was white -- well, they're ignorant. I don't see that as a conspiracy.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:12 PM

How does it not?

Factcheck.org is a great website. It confers my original point -- that Cheney has ties to the company, I was never insinuating he'd be the one making the money for the no-bid contract, simply that it's not right that the "old boys network" continues unchecked in this country.

no, it does not make it right. I was agreeing.

Yes, Cheney has ties, as do many other politicians to governmental contracts. I am saying whether they got the contract or not, it doesn't improve his interests that much.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:14 PM

Well, the irony there is that by listening to our own democracy, we may fail another. That's funny (or sad) if you really think about it.

And again, I said politician. There are options for not sending more troops, and not bringing them all home. The happy medium can be reached.

My vote is for sad. Granted, we got rid of a dictator, but at what cost to the people of Iraq? It could have been handled better is all I'm saying..

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:15 PM

no, it does not make it right. I was agreeing.

Yes, Cheney has ties, as do many other politicians to governmental contracts. I am saying whether they got the contract or not, it doesn't improve his interests that much.
Yeah, I never was really arguing that it improves his interests that much. Moreso that it perpetuates the idea of mis-trust in a government. That the impression it gives is ultimately the worst.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:15 PM

If anyone really thinks he was white -- well, they're ignorant. I don't see that as a conspiracy.

well that is the only I think I can be seen as a conspiracy regarding Jesus.

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:15 PM

Yeah, I never was really arguing that it improves his interests that much. Moreso that it perpetuates the idea of mis-trust in a government. That the impression it gives is ultimately the worst.

I can live with that statement.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:16 PM

well that is the only I think I can be seen as a conspiracy regarding Jesus.
:shrug:

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:19 PM

If anyone really thinks he was white -- well, they're ignorant. I don't see that as a conspiracy.

Maybe I should have been more specific. I was talking about his resurrection and people's beliefs of whether or not he was a 'prophet' of God.

Several religions believe Jesus was just a prophet...like Muhammed, Kirshna, Baha'u'lah, etc. That is DEBATE. His resurecction is CONSPIRACY.

And I agree...Jesus wasn't white. How could he have been?

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:20 PM

Wow. Could we get more off topic? :-(

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:20 PM

Maybe I should have been more specific. I was talking about his resurrection and people's beliefs of whether or not he was a 'prophet' of God.

Several religions believe Jesus was just a prophet...like Muhammed, Kirshna, Baha'u'lah, etc. That is DEBATE. His resurecction is CONSPIRACY.

And I agree...Jesus wasn't white. How could he have been?
Well, anyone arguing he was "just a" prophet is equally ignorant. There is (should be) no debate there. The trilemma makes that option null and void.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:24 PM

How is the belief that there are people (prophets) of different religions spreading the word of God, ignorant?

icameonherface

01/28/07, 05:26 PM

How is the belief that there are people (prophets) of different religions spreading the word of God, ignorant?

i think he said it to the extent you said he was "JUST A" prophet, like he served no other purpose.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:29 PM

How is the belief that there are people (prophets) of different religions spreading the word of God, ignorant?
No, the argument that Jesus was simply a prophet is ignorant, and cannot be true.

From CS. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Lewis is expressly saying there are three options:
Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.This comes from the medieval term: aut deus aut malus homo ("either God or an evil man). (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aut_deus_aut_malus_ homo&action=edit)

It's now refered to by most as the "trilemma." The idea that he was "only a prophet" is ridiculous.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:29 PM

First off, I didn't say that he was just a prophet...I said that is what many religions believe.
Secondly, I say prophet with the meaning of a person spreading the word orf God.
Isn't that exactly what Jesus did? That is the purpose he served. Once you get into him dying on the cross for our sins, well that is when you get into faith. That is someone's personal beliefs, not necessarily history or fact.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:32 PM

No, the argument that Jesus was simply a prophet is ignorant, and cannot be true.

From CS. Lewis:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Lewis is expressly saying there are three options:

Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.This comes from the medieval term: aut deus aut malus homo ("either God or an evil man). (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aut_deus_aut_malus_ homo&action=edit)

It's now refered to by most as the "trilemma." The idea that he was "only a prophet" is ridiculous.

Saying thast Jesus is a prophet of God would make him fall under one of those three things, which would us both correct in what we're saying.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:34 PM

First off, I didn't say that he was just a prophet...I said that is what many religions believe.

And that's why I called them ignorant, not you.

[quote=StephanieLove;5513432] Secondly, I say prophet with the meaning of a person spreading the word orf God.
Isn't that exactly what Jesus did?

No, he expressly said he was the son of God.

That is the purpose he served. Once you get into him dying on the cross for our sins, well that is when you get into faith.

No, you must look at his words.

1Roth4

01/28/07, 05:34 PM

I saw Vilsack on Jon Stewert
he was witty.. I liked him..
Obama, Vilsak and Hilary all seem like they would make good Presidents. I'm going to have to go with Obama though.

Jason Tate

01/28/07, 05:36 PM

Saying thast Jesus is a prophet of God would make him fall under one of those three things, which would us both correct in what we're saying.
Not it would not.

For starters:

John 10:30
Matthew 26:64
Matthew 9:6

Prophet =/= God.

Jesus is saying (as referenced by the above verses) that he is the son of God. That does not make him a prophet. That makes him either God, crazy, or evil. A prophet would not be crazy, a prophet would not be evil. Therefore the argument that he is simply a "prophet" is absolutely ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination or anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Bible.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:48 PM

Yes, but he spread the word of God...
And everything he said relies on faith...because this was a very long time ago and the only thing we can really say for sure is that there was a man named Jesus.

StephanieLove

01/28/07, 05:53 PM

Not it would not.

For starters:

John 10:30
Matthew 26:64
Matthew 9:6

Prophet =/= God.

Jesus is saying (as referenced by the above verses) that he is the son of God. That does not make him a prophet. That makes him either God, crazy, or evil. A prophet would not be crazy, a prophet would not be evil. Therefore the argument that he is simply a "prophet" is absolutely ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination or anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Bible.

We are obviously going by different definitions of the word then.
Because here is my definition as I understand it..
A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
Uhm, pretty sure that is what Jesus did...
Which would make Jesus a prophet.

s.t.e.v.e.n.

01/28/07, 06:10 PM

We are obviously going by different definitions of the word then.
Because here is my definition as I understand it..
A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
Uhm, pretty sure that is what Jesus did...
Which would make Jesus a prophet.

I think you are missing the point
Jesus did the things of a prophet yes but, as Jason stated, to say that he was just that is illogical.

sweet tragedy

01/28/07, 06:12 PM

We are obviously going by different definitions of the word then.
Because here is my definition as I understand it..
A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
Uhm, pretty sure that is what Jesus did...
Which would make Jesus a prophet.

I don't understand your argument at all. You're completely ignoring the Christian perspective of God and Jesus being one in the same, along with the Holy Spirit -- the Holy Trinity. He is not seen as a prophet as he was acting on behalf of God on earth, not only spreading the Word but doing miracles and the like.