GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I think the name 'presidential candidate' implies 'mentally deficient', sometimes 'severely ...'. But, there is a reason for it, mentally deficient people are easier to manipulate and have no morals whatsoever.
I think when McCain gits int'a dem suthern states what'all wherey'all dem inbred an' uneducatud folks, he'd git an awful big vote c'ause ya'll know thet those folks like ta vote for their own kind. Can't vote for none o' 'em snobbish folks that goed to skool or nuthin' ya'll know. That's why he's picked Palin - can you imagine a dumber set o' tits on legs? Dis is all good shet in de bible belt, an' don't you go a-forgettin' it boy. So McCain didn't go for Palin because he's a fool, but because there are numerous fools who would be taken in by her.
You know you're in trouble when even a top republican (Powell) endorses Obama. Of course Mccain is going to play the race card on this and say that he endorses Obama because Powell is black.
I am already 99% sure that Obama will be elected president, and not Mccain. If Mccain wants to know why, it is because he voted for Bush's policies 100% of the time, and had very negative campaign ads against a candidate, the most negative in this whole election. He only has himself to blame.
I am already 99% sure that Obama will be elected president, and not Mccain. If Mccain wants to know why, it is because he voted for Bush's policies 100% of the time
Now now, it's only around 95% of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz
and had very negative campaign ads against a candidate, the most negative in this whole election. He only has himself to blame.
McCain can only blame himself. McCain blasted Bush back in 2000 cause Bush did the same thing to McCain to win the nomination. Now he's turned around and hired most of the guys who worked for Rove to do the same thing for him. Most of his staff were against him in 2000, now they're trying to get him into office with the same old Rove tactics that aren't going to work anymore.
It's even sad when Rove himself said McCain's going to far in his negative campaign. Sure Obama is attacking McCain but he's attacking his policies, not McCain as a person. There's a clear difference in the attacks from what I've seen.
If Obama supporters were yelling out "kill him" directed towards McCain, McCain would have a cow.
Obama has proven to be the adult in this election. And I found it very pathetic to watch McCain practically beg Obama to repudiate John Lewis's remarks about McCain and Palin's tactics. Obama couldn't repudiate it more than telling him in the 3rd debate that Lewis isn't part of his campaign, isn't going to be and will never advise Obama if he's elected. If McCain wants an apology, go ask Lewis for one, not Obama.
But not once have we seen McCain repudiate the racist "kill him" remarks made at his rallies. The only thing he's stated was "I'm proud of my supporters at my rallies". Geez John, you like people who spurt out "kill him" about your opponent? McCain and his supporters could only with with that type of attitude back before the civil rights movements.
McCain is running for McCain, not the American citizens. My view of McCain is he's a pathetic loser, bitter angry old man who's gone negative because this is his last chance to outrank daddy and granddad in the Navy as a President.
Ask me what I thought of McCain 8 years ago, would have been a different story. If McCain was the man he was 8 years ago, he might have had my vote today, but sadly that's not the case.
I don't know for sure if this is going to be a landslide victory for the dems but I know for sure that Obama will be the next Commander in Chief. I myself am so disgusted with Mccain I am tempted to just vote Obama out of spite for the reps. now. This country has moved so far to the right that the mentality of the rep. party is pure fascist/racist/extremist/any_other_ist I can think of.
Its bad enough that the rep party has also been infiltrated by these christianists, that to me are no different than the islamist that they portray as the enemy. You want religious extremism? Just look at what is here already in this fucking country, and how the policies these past 8 years have been inspired from.
Now that I have said that, and am trying to calm down, I am still looking towards Nader or Paul to throw away my vote to. I have nothing against Obama, and at this point he is CLEARLY the better man. I tip my hat to him for that, but I do not want to vote for Obama, not because he is black, I could give two shits if he were purple. (Mccain supporters think otherwise, and they may as well stop trying to mask their ignorance. "We ain't voting for no nigger!")
Obama has charisma and is well spoken, but my only issue with him is that he is a dem; I just for once want to see a non dem/rep at this point because I am rather tired of how wildly this country swings to the far-right or far-left. It feels like I am on a pendulum and is making me nauseous, and that is my only worry with Obama, since things have moved too far to the right, and I don't know if he will try to balance things out; or move this country too far to the left.
Its bad enough that the rep party has also been infiltrated by these christianists, that to me are no different than the islamist that they portray as the enemy. You want religious extremism? Just look at what is here already in this fucking country, and how the policies these past 8 years have been inspired from.
Yeah, I think the Treaty of Tripoli said it best from our founding fathers on our stance as a free nation and how we'll work with other nations that are run more on a religious stance. I hate when people try to argue that the United States is a Christian nation. If it was founded to be such a thing, then the religion of Freedom should be stricken from the Constitution.
Article 11 of the Treaty stated this:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
So, the United States shall never produce an interruption of harmony between two countries based on religious differences. That's at least my interpretation of the second part of Article 11. The first part is quite clear about the values this nation was founded on.
Sadly though, we're still stuck as a primarily two party system. But you have the freedom to vote for who you think will do the best job. Don't vote against a guy cause you hate him, vote for the guy you think is going to do the better job.
Yeah, I think the Treaty of Tripoli said it best from our founding fathers on our stance as a free nation and how we'll work with other nations that are run more on a religious stance. I hate when people try to argue that the United States is a Christian nation. If it was founded to be such a thing, then the religion of Freedom should be stricken from the Constitution.
However one nutjob evangelist (Bush supporter) somehow interpreted the Treaty of Tripoli as 'A means of the United States to declare war on Muslims and Islam." I don't know who the guy was off the top of my head but thats how he interpreted it. His remarks even made it on the news... I just can't for the life of me remember/find who he is, but the point is that when you have people like them essentially dictating to the rep. party of what policies should be in place, nothing but disaster will be the outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickykid
But you have the freedom to vote for who you think will do the best job. Don't vote against a guy cause you hate him, vote for the guy you think is going to do the better job.
I certainly don't think Mccain can do a better job, so thats why I won't be voting for him, but thats just my opinion, and as good as Obama sounds, I still am voting a third party candidate, even though I am very sure he can do a much better job than Mccain.
I certainly don't think Mccain can do a better job, so thats why I won't be voting for him, but thats just my opinion, and as good as Obama sounds, I still am voting a third party candidate, even though I am very sure he can do a much better job than Mccain.
My soon to be 3 year old could do a better job than McCain with his "Milk and Cookies for Everyone" Campaign..
Obama has proven to be the adult in this election. And I found it very pathetic to watch McCain practically beg Obama to repudiate John Lewis's remarks about McCain and Palin's tactics. Obama couldn't repudiate it more than telling him in the 3rd debate that Lewis isn't part of his campaign, isn't going to be and will never advise Obama if he's elected. If McCain wants an apology, go ask Lewis for one, not Obama.
I agree 100% with Lewis and I don't see why he should apologize to McCain. Palin and her supporters are especially creepy. Now let's all hold hands and pray away the gay.
Distribution: Vector Linux 5.1 Std., Vector Linux 5.8 Std., Win2k, XP, OS X (10.4 & 10.5)
Posts: 344
Rep:
The Cynthia McKinney is running for president as the Green party nominee.
I am going to vote green in an effort to add a third party to the system. The bi-polar two party system has become as unstable as dual booting Linux and Windows on the same Hard drive.
The Cynthia McKinney is running for president as the Green party nominee.
I am going to vote green in an effort to add a third party to the system. The bi-polar two party system has become as unstable as dual booting Linux and Windows on the same Hard drive.
I am going to vote green in an effort to add a third party to the system. The bi-polar two party system has become as unstable as dual booting Linux and Windows on the same Hard drive.
could it be that the Republicans do not *want* to win the election?
This may seem absurd at first, but lets look at the following:
1) The USA have a record debt, a huge deficit and a possible (probable?) recession coming.
2) The 2 conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) were easy to enter into, but difficult to get out of.
3) The credit crunch and following actions may cost the government up to $700 Billion, further increasing the already record (and if I understand correctly, consitutionally illegal) debt.
4) Bush had not left a legacy of skillful leadership
5) Many internal problems which have been brewing for some time (economy, health care system, educational system, trade deficit, consumer debts) were insufficiantly addressed because of preoccupation with the Iraq/Aghanistan conflicts.
Should the Democrats win the election:
6) Solving the deficit/debt issue would inherently imply raising taxes and cutting government spending. The republicans get to say "we told you so."
7) Staying in Iraq/afghanistan would be uncredible. Pulling out may cause instability in the region and will definately get blame for any further terrorist attack (which definately will occur somewhere, some time.) Either way, the republicans again get to say "we told you so."
Could it be that the Republicans want to jump ship and leave the democrats to figure out how to solve these issues, while being able to throw criticism from the sidelines?
If points 6 and 7 come true, they will be able to use the political capital from this for decades to come.
Is McCain really so good that he was the prime republican candidate without serious opposition, or was he nominated to lose?
Is Palin really the ideal running mate, or was she picked because someone was needed to tread on political landmines?
could it be that the Republicans do not *want* to win the election?
This may seem absurd at first, but lets look at the following:
The US political system is far more complicated than that. Of course the Republicans want to win - they have the agenda of the far-right christian minority to push (well, looking at the campaigning you'd get the impression that right-wing religion is all the GOP stands for). It's just that McCain's an old dog with - well, old tricks. He's trying to use the tricks that got Dubbyah re-elected (democrats don't know anything about security, Obama makes buddies with terrorists, etc). The problem is that those tricks associate McCain with Dubbyah and the people have had enough of Dubbyah. 8 years of money lost to wars and a dying economy - so bye-bye Dubbyah and take your monkeys with you. I was shocked that Kerry was so inept that he let those tricks trip him up during the last election. Now the democrats have a very charismatic candidate who knows how to talk and talk fast. He won't let McCain set the agenda (democrats will sell the USA to terrorists); instead, he brings up real issues and keeps pressing McCain about them. The only hope for the GOP now is that large enough portions of the USA would still be racist and vote for McCain simply because he's not the black dude. I guess the USA is well on its way to hell - why not vote McCain and Palin and send it on its way quicker?
Guys, could someone explain to me if this is a hoax or it might be true? http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...083/281573/27/
Obama is not eligible to be President? That would be yet another major crisis, this time a political one...
Guys, could someone explain to me if this is a hoax or it might be true? http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...083/281573/27/
Obama is not eligible to be President? That would be yet another major crisis, this time a political one...
McCain is actually also not eligible, but what the heck, since they both have this problem they cancel each other out.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.