does obama have what it takes

[Member2019]

Seriously Prof Voluptuary, Larry Craig plead guilty to that shit. If he wasn't guilty he should have fought the allegations in court. I'm sure, as a U.S. Senator he was aware of this and had access to adaquite legal cousel.

Apparently he wanted to avoid public humiliation after he was arrested despite denying the allegations no less than three (3) times. In this case, given how the officer attempted no less than three (3) times to coerce his answer under the threat of public prosecution (and how to "avoid" it) when he said "no" before being put in jail, he decided to "give in" after sleeping on it.

I might have done the same myself in the same situation. Sometimes it's professional suicide for it to come out into public. After all, people made the judgement based on just a hearing of a partial clip of the tape. People spinned this rather interestingly from that partial clip. When I heard the full clip, I was severely pissed off.

And I realize that there are hypocrites in the democratic party as well. No need for the lecture.

Then you must be a hypocrite for supporting the Democrat party, right? Guilt-by-association. McCarthyism at its finest.

I will vote for candidates based on their voting record, if any, or what they individual say (and after analyzing it). That often leads me to omit votes.

Both McCain and Obama have reached my threshhold of BS this election that I do not see either getting my vote. But I will still go to the polls and cast the votes where I do want a candidate.

 

[Member2019]

God forbid ...

I'm for outlawing blind solicitations as well.
As for making it harder for minors to access porn. I think that is the responsibility of parents. We don't need more government regulation in order to do something that parents should be doing for themselves. There is plenty of "pornblocking" software available. As well as other measures they can take to keep their kids from going to websites like w w w . 2 girls 1 cup . c o m

God forbid the government actually try to push "disclosure" and a technical infrastructure to support such blocking than pushing another agenda of either for or against pornography in general.

It's just like I said after the Super Bowl some four (4) years ago. No fines. No hearings. No non-sense. Simple solution ...

For the next three (3) years (after the incident), the Super Bowl has to run the following screen at the return of every commercial break ...

"Warning: This event may contain partial nudity. Parental guidance is advised."

I am for 0% censorship, 100% disclosure. Everything else is political non-sense that people will dance around.

I have the same attitude on ethics, campaign finance, etc... Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. Everything else is political non-sense that people dance around.

Every damn election year they try to pass some legislation that will censor people like Rush Limbaugh. It pisses me off as an American, even though I can't stand Rush and think he's a hypocrite.

 

[tubuler]

/\ OH, I see. Larry Craig plead guilty to soliciting homosexual sex with strangers in an airport bathroom because he thought it would keep him from being humiliated. Cuz that makes a hell of a lotta sense.

It was gonna come out in public whether he fought it in court or not. He's a Senator for christs sake. In fact, most of his colleagues in the GOP said he should've fought the charges and asked him to resign after he plead guilty.

 

[Member2019]

He didn't plead guilty to soliciting sex (you just proved my point more) ...

/\ OH, I see. Larry Craig plead guilty to soliciting homosexual sex with strangers in an airport bathroom because he thought it would keep him from being embarressed. Cuz that makes a hell of a lotta sense.

By pleading guilty -- and it was not to soliciting any type of sex at all (once again, you just prove my point!), they did keep it out of the papers! Apparently you aren't familiar with the timeframe this happened over (let alone not even the charge brought against him ).

Seriously, listen to the full tape.

It was gonna come out in public whether he fought it in court or not. He's a Senator for christs sake. In fact, most of his colleagues in the GOP said he should've fought the charges and asked him to resign after he plead guilty.

Yes, everyone says that in hindsight. Everyone has to say that.

But the reality is that the way the officers and this entire operation conducted themselves was coercion. They did keep other cases secret!

In all honesty, based 100% on how I act in the bathroom, I would be so guilty of what he did. I've also used the phrase, "you saw something that didn't happen" to others, meaning, "you are reading way too much into what you want, not what I actually did."

I was pissed when I heard the full tape. I highly recommend it. I would have probably done so as well after spending time in jail.

The officer kept telling him how he would avoid embarrassment, and he kept denying it regardless of that. But I guess after being thrown in jail, he finally "gave in." Like everyone else did as well, to avoid having their name in the paper.

As much as an American-Libertarian I am, I honestly have to admit that I would have probably "given in" had it happened to myself. I've been in similar, political situations before.

People would assume he was gay, by it merely becoming public. Even you assumed what he plead guilty to, not what he actually did! That's just more proof to my point.

This whole incident is proof that people care more about politics, than actually our civil liberties. This was coercion. And he's not the only one it has happened to.

 

[tubuler]

/\Very sorry. He made a plea deal and plead down to disorderly conduct. Sorry my memory failed me. But that doesn't invalidate my point. He still plead guilty to a crime that involved soliciting sex from men in an airport bathroom.

You also forget that eight gay men came forward to the Idaho Statesman newspaper alleging either sexual encounters with Craig, or attempts by Craig to engage in sexual encounters. One of these eight men was Mike Jones, the same male prostitute frequented by Rev. Ted Haggard.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I'll tell you why I don't think we will be leaving Iraq soon.

History.

We fought the Germans in WWI, which was supposed to be the war to end all wars, and then we withdrew. What happened then? The German military became more powerful and were responsible for the death of over 6 million Jews. Then we fought them again, this time WWII. When the war was over, we did not leave. We built bases all over Germany. They served as our strategic location within Europe. Same in Japan so we had Pacific bases. Then the Korean War surfaced, and now we have bases in South Korea. I guess Vietnam didn't create any bases, but we ended up fortifying Japan since it is across the water.

After Desert Storm, we withdrew (to an extent). There were no-fly zones in the North and South. The U.S. military were all around Iraq. Personally I thought it was stupid to end the blitzkrieg of Desert Storm that we started when the war was way from finished. Anyways, problems continued with sanctions and "possible" nuclear weapons. But the way I see it, it was inevitable for us to get back in there and dispose of Saddam. Unfortunately it had to be by bad intelligence. Now we're there, and if history repeats itself, we'll be building permanent bases there. The U.S. military will then have a strategic location smack-dab in the middle of the Middle East, an area which needs alot of clean-up. Just like how the bases in Germany were there while the Cold War and Communism was around.

While you basically have the history correct except for a couple little details I think the lessons you draw are wrong.
First The US was not the dominant power of the world at the time of the 1st world war.That would have still been the brits.We entered that war late and while our fresh troops were important it was really the brits and france who would dictate the post war era.The lesson of what happened after WW1 is don't be so punitive to the losers(the germans) which the winners were with the punitive reparations etc that germany was forced to pay after the war which led to economic chaos and the rise of Hitler.For that reason as well as wanting to stabalize europe to keep it from going communist things were much diffferent after WW2.This was also the reason we established bases in Japan,stabalize and protect them from the communists.But let me say on Vietnam we lost that one and rightfully so as we were just the last of a long line of foreign countries who had tried to meddle in their affairs.Nam is one of the lessons to be learned,all the economic and military power is going to still not usually prevail against people fighting for such a cause.Especially since all out wars that kill people in the millions and completely bring peoples to their knees are no longer practical.The downsides to the people even percieved to have won will be overwhelming if that ever breaks out again.And while not important I would point out nam had nothing to do with any bases being put in japan,those bases had been there for decades before nam.
On Desert Storm Elder Bush knew history and what he was doing much more than GWB does.It was bad mistake to try to impose regime change in Iraq.We are not powerfull enough to do such things in the face of a people who does not want it imposed on them(a lesson from Nam).I won't get into the reasons for our invasion really except to say it was IMO tottaly about a permanent US presence there and not about WMDs or freeing Iraq or anything else,those were just the maunfactured pretenses.It really is an example of a the neo-cons which GWB listened too imperalistic ideas of US domination of that strategic area.
When you talk of the US cleaning up an area like the middle east militarily what you fail to see is that is no different than what a Napoleon or a Hitler had in mind for some places.They thought they were cleaning places up and going to make the world right as well.It was not a good idea then for them and is not a good idea now for us.And the lesson of history is it can't be done especially in the modern age at the point of a gun.
The lessons of the recent past are that almost all military use is counter productive and determental to the people that employ it.You would have thought people had learned that from WW2 and especially the US from Vietnam.And it is especially foolish to use it to try to reshape the world.Thats why Bush Sr did the right thing while Jr has gotten us into a quagmire.The world is now so interdependant and tied together that any large miltary conflict will cripple it especially in an area like the mid east with all the oil.It is the US that totally needs stability and the abscence of conflict to maintain its way of life which is dependant of the rest of the worlds resources.Using our military is rolling the dice on that every time it is used.
To sum up lol the world today is not the world of post ww1 or even ww2.Everyone is now so connected and the limits on what power any country will be able to use have changed it dramatically.The old way of war being a way to settle economic and political conflicts is outdated and no longer practical.A dedicated few can make all the power of a nation like the US impudent and that has been shown repeatedly.:2 cents:

 

[Weakener]

If George W. Bush could get elected two times in a row, I really don't think it takes much to become president in the US, so Obama has plenty of what it takes.

 

[calpoon]

Good point. He has a lot of charisma, but not a lot of experience.

Hmm...

Yeah, sure. I think he'd make a good porn star.

 

[scubamike]

This seems honestly written. A bit simplistic because part of the reason for bases was "a show of force" but we also didn't have satellite networks like we do now. We didn't build any bases in Vietnam because we left that country and the Communist regime took over. Guess what? We now trade with Vietnam. It doesn't seem very likely that they'll attack us soon, does it?

I don't dispute your chain of events recollection and our military response. My only thing to say today is that all those conflicts had an enemy we could identify on the battlefield. We can't identify "the enemy" in Iraq because we can't find a consensus, today, on who we fight. The President and the Pubs speak in generalities like "the enemy" and "insurgents" and "those who would do us harm" and "terrorists." That's it. If we held up a photo of an Al Qaeda member, a Saddam Republican Army man, an Iranian Army man, a Taliban member and "an insurgent" I wonder how many American politicians and Generals could correctly identify them?

Building bases in hostile places worked when we could identify an enemy. We can't because we defeated Saddam's Army and we seem to be nothing more than a police force who sometimes settle ethnic squabbles. That seems hardly fitting for our Military, don't you think?

My other problem with such acceptance of longterm occupation is cost. Repubs who make the argument that we have to spend hundreds of billions to rebuild Iraq but yet we need tax breaks at home and we need to not fund anything at home are going to get obliterated at the polls. Americans don't want to spend their hard earned money on another country when our home country and towns are in shambles...sorry Scuba. It's a losing argument. There's no justification to be in the Middle East anymore.

I'm not trying to say what I want, just saying what I think might happen due to history. But you definitely brought in good points. Now there is a different "hidden" enemy. War is expensive. Our economy is in shambles. All true.

 

[scubamike]

That doesn't make you a moderate. It makes you a typical right-wing hypocrite.

Call me whatever you want, Liberal. I don't give a F**K.

 

[scubamike]

Re: Ummm ...

Senator Larry Craig
Congressman Mark Foley
Reverand Ted Haggard

Those are just 3 examples of the type of right-wing hypocrite I was referring to. People who rage against things they claim are morally reprehensible such as homosexuality or recreational drug use. Which, of course, are things they are guilty of partaking in themselves. Which is, of course, hypocritical.

The reason a republican who "likes porn" is a hypocrite is because they vote for politicians who support making things like porn illegal. Why would you support someone who condemns various aspects of your personal lifestyle? That is hypocritical.

(that libertarian stuff you were talking about is off topic as far as the exchange me and scubamike were having. although you do make a valid point)

Hey dumbass, I vote Republican because of security reasons. Security is more important to me than porn. I guess you're different. You really think people's number one reason to vote for the president is that they'll let them have orgasms in the privacy of their own homes?

 

[tubuler]

Re: Ummm ...

Hey dumbass, I vote Republican because of security reasons. Security is more important to me than porn. I guess you're different. You really think people's number one reason to vote for the president is that they'll let them have orgasms in the privacy of their own homes?

OH I see now. You vote republican because your one of those pussies who shits his pants at the mere thought of terrorism. And your dumb enough to be tricked into believing that only republicans are capable of providing security.

Your afraid of the big bad muslim boogy man because the fear-mongering GOP has got your bitch ass fooled into believing that "post 9/11 world" bullshit. Your a sucker. Too blinded by a bullshit political scare tactic to notice that your everyday freedoms are in jeopardy and the countries economy is being run into the ground.

Get a fucking clue. We have the biggest military in the history of the world. There is gonna be security no matter who gets elected. Stop being such a pussy. There isn't a terrorist hiding underneath your bed.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Here is something I heard the other day on TV and was amazed.They were talking about how apparently the McCain campaign is not nearly as internet savy as the Obama camp is.And then they said McCain actually is completely computer challanged and cannot use a PC.Talk about somebody out of touch LOL!:eek:

His rely's on his wife to do the PC stuff!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzi9cXgmhyc&feature=related

 

[georges]

Guess we know now why Bush has been so bad ,never been in a war.Although I don't think that is really a requirement to be a good president.Many never saw war but served well.
And I don't know where you get Obama was a priest or a preacher in his life?:dunno:

Being a good geostrategist and having been in wars is clearly showing that the republican candidate has more experience and therefore more credit when dealing with critical matters when it comes to the safety of the country or dealing with rogue countries. Clinton was a liar under oath, Jimmy Carter was far to be a that great president. Reagan despite his nearsightedness served in the military, Dwight D Eisenhower was one of the leaders who made it possible to win over the axis and Nixon was a lieutnant commander in the navy during wwII. Your friend Obama was a harvard graduate in law ans is an attorney but he has never faced dangers in wars nor to take decisions when it comes to resolve conflict, Mc Cain was a navy pilot who fought in Vietnam, who was a POW and who was badly injuried during his military service. So of these two, my vote goes to the one who has fought the communists and how been POW and not some attorney at law who is not really giving a damn about his country's safety, my choice is made easily.

 

[YMIHERE]

.... Reagan despite his nearsightedness served in the military

Reagan completed fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses and enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve. His military experience consisted of making films in Hollywood for the armed forces. The most minimumal of military experiences.

 

[scubamike]

Re: Ummm ...

OH I see now. You vote republican because your one of those pussies who shits his pants at the mere thought of terrorism. And your dumb enough to be tricked into believing that only republicans are capable of providing security.

Your afraid of the big bad muslim boogy man because the fear-mongering GOP has got your bitch ass fooled into believing that "post 9/11 world" bullshit. Your a sucker. Too blinded by a bullshit political scare tactic to notice that your everyday freedoms are in jeopardy and the countries economy is being run into the ground.

Get a fucking clue. We have the biggest military in the history of the world. There is gonna be security no matter who gets elected. Stop being such a pussy. There isn't a terrorist hiding underneath your bed.

:ban:byebye...nice toilet talk you have

 

[Apex]

you think GB was a clown?
just wait till that bozo takes over your country!

 

[gmaxman1212]

good forum and responses so far i did not expect this thread to do so well i am also suprised that there are more no votes for obama well if i knew how it would turn out why would i have started a poll. but i still stick to my reluctant maybe.

 

[Fastone56]

Honestly, we can only guess at what Obama may or may not have. We do know though that McCain will be a Bush Clone weather he wants to be or not.:2 cents:

 

[yaheem]

Does anyone have what it takes? All this talk about change, personally I dont like change but this country is not in the best of times and maybe change might be good. Hey, if there is anybody running on the gas and milk platform? Would totally vote for them. Well whoever wins will be the decision of the good citizens of the USA and they usually vote for the best candidate just like the greatness that is George Walker Bush.