View Full Version: 2008 Presidential Elections

Community Lounge-Sit back, and have fun!! > Intellectual Discussion > 2008 Presidential Elections

Pages: [1] 2


Title: 2008 Presidential Elections
Description: US of A


Craig - September 2, 2007 01:48 AM (GMT)
Discuss it here.

LaughingMan - September 2, 2007 02:11 AM (GMT)
I swear they've been talking about the next election since the last one ended... you can tell the media really wants Lil' Bush out of the whitehouse, lol.

You know what, just wake me up when the primaries are over and we have some nominees, this is getting retarded...

Chopstix - September 2, 2007 02:27 AM (GMT)
Lets just not elect a president and see if that works. I don't like any of the candidates and if Hilary Clinton does make office, I will move to Mexico.

LaughingMan - September 2, 2007 03:28 AM (GMT)
The way it looks, we're breaking new ground this year, as our president will likely either be a woman or a black man.

Then again, the red states really do hate change...

TStorm2 - September 2, 2007 01:28 PM (GMT)
I would rather see Sen. Obama in the White House. Simply because it would be good to have a black person in the seat!

simplyatbliss - September 2, 2007 07:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (TStorm2 @ Sep 2 2007, 07:28 AM)
I would rather see Sen. Obama in the White House. Simply because it would be good to have a black person in the seat!

...ehh


Personally, I don't like any of the candidates. I flat out wrote all the Republicans off because they're the most boring sort of candidates ever. Gays bad, illegal aliens bad, more troops, God Bless America, Chavez bad, blah blah blah.

The Democrats aren't any better though. A woman and black candidate? Big deal... A person's sex and race should have nothing to do with choosing a president. If you were the president, would you really like to be remembered as the first black president or first woman president? Wow, thanks for the label. Obama has little to no experience as a senator. Ever since he won the senate seat in 2004 I had a funny feeling that he would try to run for president.

And I just don't agree with Hillary. She blames video game violence as a major influence on kids. She voted against same sex marriage. Clinton worked on a universal health care bill but stopped after funding from health insurance companies made her change her mind. She voted for the war.

The thing is that politicians are easily "corruptible" based on whose giving them funding. Millions of dollars in funding can quickly influence a politician to change his/her political views. At the time being, I really do know if I will vote for the next presidential election, at least maybe not a Democrat or Republican. If I vote, it might just be for a Libertarian Party or Green Party candidate. It might not "matter as much", but voting a lesser of two evils is just stupid.

Craig - September 2, 2007 07:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (LaughingMan @ Sep 2 2007, 02:11 AM)
I swear they've been talking about the next election since the last one ended... you can tell the media really wants Lil' Bush out of the whitehouse, lol.

You know what, just wake me up when the primaries are over and we have some nominees, this is getting retarded...

Because the Media is biased.

Clint Eastwood - September 3, 2007 01:22 AM (GMT)
I just hope to god that they'll put in someone better than Bush.

LaughingMan - September 3, 2007 01:27 AM (GMT)
Well Bush can't go for term 3, since 2 is all you get, lol. Now all we have to worry about is Jeb running at some point, since the red states love their bush and all...

xBifnepasu - September 6, 2007 01:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Craig)
QUOTE (LaughingMan)
I swear they've been talking about the next election since the last one ended... you can tell the media really wants Lil' Bush out of the whitehouse, lol.

You know what, just wake me up when the primaries are over and we have some nominees, this is getting retarded...

Because the Media is biased.

Of course the media is biased. What planet have you been living on to only just figure that out, or at the very least feel the compulsion to state such an obvious fact.
But you have to wonder Craig. Why do the media give Bush such a bad name?
Could be because he's a dolt and have good reason and good ammo? Cos seriously, you don't have to fabricate anything to make that guy look stupid and even evil. Because, that truly is him to a T.
QUOTE (LaughingMan)
Well Bush can't go for term 3, since 2 is all you get, lol. Now all we have to worry about is Jeb running at some point, since the red states love their bush and all...

He has people on the job, though...
QUOTE
On May 4, 2007, President George W. Bush signed an executive order that could ensure that he won't have to relinquish office in 2009. Or he could just deliver a dictatorship into the hands of a future chief executive.
The official name of this charming order is the National Security and Homeland Security/Presidential Directive (specifically, NSPD-51/HSPD-20). NSPD-51 didn't receive any coverage in the mainstream media-in fact, it was only discovered when the unclassified portion was posted on the White House Web site on May 9, with no further announcement or press briefing.
According to NSPD-51, in the event of a (loosely defined) "catastrophic emergency," the president can literally take over the government functions and direct all private-sector activities to ensure that the US emerges with an "enduring constitutional gonvernment." How the government is supposed to remain constitutional in the face of the de facto dictatorship and abridgement of the separation of powers that NSPD-51 would deliver isn't addressed in the language of the directive.
"Catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraodinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severly affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
Even more frightening, there is no requirement that the president submit the Congress a declaration that such a state of catastrophic emergency exists: NSPD-51 can be implemented without Congressional approval. Of course, since Congress would also be directed by the president, why should they be bothered to approve his right rule?
NSPD-51 apparently supersedes the National Emergencies Act, a US federal law passed in 1976, which actually charges Congress with oversight of presidential emergency powers.
Conspiracy theorists who have speculated that the Bush administration won't be giving up the reins of power so easily come Jan. 20 2009, argue that NSPD-51 could set the stage for the cancellation of the '08 presidential election, or serve to justify a suspension of the transfer of office from Bush to the new president-elect. For all those people counting down the days and hours to Bush's exit, that would be a major disappointment, to say the least. Until then, we'll all just have to hold our collective breath and the hope that no such "catastrophic emergency" comes to pass.
-Mark Miller

Taken from High Times magazine October issue 2007.

What bad news, huh?
Well, we all knew he'd try something. And whatever he has planned to make it happen, I hope he screws up ROYALLY!

~~xBif.

simplyatbliss - September 6, 2007 02:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (xBifnepasu @ Sep 6 2007, 07:47 AM)
Of course the media is biased. What planet have you been living on to only just figure that out, or at the very least feel the compulsion to state such an obvious fact.

Do you really have to be that mean? lol

QUOTE
But you have to wonder Craig. Why do the media give Bush such a bad name?
Could be because he's a dolt and have good reason and good ammo? Cos seriously, you don't have to fabricate anything to make that guy look stupid and even evil. Because, that truly is him to a T.

Isn't Fox News still behind Bush? I'm pretty sure they are the ones that have the most watchers. CNN might have the most "unique" viewers, but the average bunch Fox News is still the one that everybody watches. And as far as I can tell, news channels like CNN and MSNBC didn't change their views of the president until after his approval ratings went lower than 50%. I'm guessing they were appealing to the viewers for more raitings than of being biased. News services aren't supposed to be biased, but I guess it can't be helped since we do not live in a perfect society.

QUOTE
On May 4, 2007, President George W. Bush signed an executive order that could ensure that he won't have to relinquish office in 2009. Or he could just deliver a dictatorship into the hands of a future chief executive.
The official name of this charming order is the National Security and Homeland Security/Presidential Directive (specifically, NSPD-51/HSPD-20). NSPD-51 didn't receive any coverage in the mainstream media-in fact, it was only discovered when the unclassified portion was posted on the White House Web site on May 9, with no further announcement or press briefing.
According to NSPD-51, in the event of a (loosely defined) "catastrophic emergency," the president can literally take over the government functions and direct all private-sector activities to ensure that the US emerges with an "enduring constitutional gonvernment." How the government is supposed to remain constitutional in the face of the de facto dictatorship and abridgement of the separation of powers that NSPD-51 would deliver isn't addressed in the language of the directive.
"Catastrophic emergency" is defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraodinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severly affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
Even more frightening, there is no requirement that the president submit the Congress a declaration that such a state of catastrophic emergency exists: NSPD-51 can be implemented without Congressional approval. Of course, since Congress would also be directed by the president, why should they be bothered to approve his right rule?
NSPD-51 apparently supersedes the National Emergencies Act, a US federal law passed in 1976, which actually charges Congress with oversight of presidential emergency powers.
Conspiracy theorists who have speculated that the Bush administration won't be giving up the reins of power so easily come Jan. 20 2009, argue that NSPD-51 could set the stage for the cancellation of the '08 presidential election, or serve to justify a suspension of the transfer of office from Bush to the new president-elect. For all those people counting down the days and hours to Bush's exit, that would be a major disappointment, to say the least. Until then, we'll all just have to hold our collective breath and the hope that no such "catastrophic emergency" comes to pass.
-Mark Miller

Taken from High Times magazine October issue 2007.

You quoted High Times Magazine? lol...

There were little if any news coverage when the Patriot Act was voted on as well.

AngelKing - September 12, 2007 08:38 PM (GMT)
Even though I try to keep updated with current political issues and controversies, I'm honestly not too interested in the upcoming election. Tired of the parties blaming crap on each other. I can thankfully say I don't really consider myself a Republican nor a Democrat, but Independent conservative.

With that in mind, who the hell am I going to vote for? :ph43r: :blink:

sparklynshiney - September 20, 2007 09:02 PM (GMT)
personally, i'd vote hillary. :]

simplyatbliss - September 20, 2007 09:06 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (AngelKing @ Sep 12 2007, 02:38 PM)
I can thankfully say I don't really consider myself a Republican nor a Democrat, but Independent conservative.

With that in mind, who the hell am I going to vote for? :ph43r: :blink:

A Libertarian Party candidate!

Chopstix - September 21, 2007 11:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (sparklynshiney @ Sep 20 2007, 03:02 PM)
personally, i'd vote hillary. :]

That means you are inviting Bill Clinton back into the white house, AND I DON'T LIKE IT.

simplyatbliss - September 22, 2007 12:34 AM (GMT)
Why not?

Maddy - September 22, 2007 12:58 AM (GMT)
i want hillary clinton

sparklynshiney - September 22, 2007 01:20 AM (GMT)
i dont know.. i would rather anyone there other than bush.

i dont like obama. i dont really know why but ive watched him speak and i just don't like it. ive liked hilary for a loong time. i think she helped clinton run the country in the first place.. so yeah.

my vote goes to hilary.

Chopstix - September 22, 2007 04:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (simplyatbliss @ Sep 21 2007, 06:34 PM)
Why not?

In my personal Opinion Clinton was worse than Bush, el gasp.

simplyatbliss - September 22, 2007 08:27 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Chopstix @ Sep 22 2007, 10:39 AM)
QUOTE (simplyatbliss @ Sep 21 2007, 06:34 PM)
Why not?

In my personal Opinion Clinton was worse than Bush, el gasp.

...


wow.









...



..




wow. :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

sparklynshiney - September 22, 2007 11:45 PM (GMT)
i have no idea how. :]

xBifnepasu - September 27, 2007 04:55 AM (GMT)
user posted image

simplyatbliss - September 27, 2007 05:47 AM (GMT)
Haha...that's funny. Oh, Fox News.

AngelKing - September 28, 2007 08:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Chopstix @ Sep 22 2007, 08:39 AM)
QUOTE (simplyatbliss @ Sep 21 2007, 06:34 PM)
Why not?

In my personal Opinion Clinton was worse than Bush, el gasp.

Okay, even though I don't agree with Clinton cuz of the moral stuff and everything. But he was a good president, he lowered the national deficit and helped improved the economy. Many presidents can barely do one. And when you compare Clinton with Bush, he's much better.

Infamouz One - October 2, 2007 06:18 PM (GMT)
If I could vote then, Out of all the Candidates, Barack Obama is the best choice.
No, not because he'd be the first ever Black President (and obviously, I'm Black)
But it's because he's provided us with details and his word on what he'd do if he were President.
The others have, but then again, who the hell cares? Who ARE they?
The only other one who may have some recognition in the Urban Areas, would be Hilary Clinton, and we all know why.

sparklynshiney - October 2, 2007 08:54 PM (GMT)
i love hilary's idea to give all babies born in the US $5,000 to save for educational purposes down the line. they would only get it once they graduate HS... and if they didnt want to use it to go to college, they could use it as a down payment on a house or something.

that's amazing. plus, who do you think actually ran the house with clinton was in? HILARY. so i still would vote her.

simplyatbliss - October 2, 2007 11:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Infamouz One @ Oct 2 2007, 12:18 PM)
If I could vote then, Out of all the Candidates, Barack Obama is the best choice.
No, not because he'd be the first ever Black President (and obviously, I'm Black)
But it's because he's provided us with details and his word on what he'd do if he were President.
The others have, but then again, who the hell cares? Who ARE they?
The only other one who may have some recognition in the Urban Areas, would be Hilary Clinton, and we all know why.

I didn't know you were black, lol.

Who the hell is Obama? He's a rich kid (that happens to be black) with no political experience whatsoever. He's a great orator, but I don't know anything about him when it comes to any decisions he has made in the political world. It's easy for him to say he's against the war, but I have no idea whether or not he would've voted for or against since he's only been in office for 2 freakin' years. The war's been going for like 4 years.

Hillary is just...Hillary. She's too locked into all of these companies that provide her public funding. Like when she was trying to get her public health care bill pass (let's not debate on how the hell that is bad) she was stopped by...the health insurance companies. They paid her millions of dollars for her to give up. She blames today's violence on video games...VIDEO GAMES. Because the reason why I want to hurt someone was because of GTA3...not because the guy did something immoral or stupid or annoying or dishonest. Clinton voted for the war in 2003 and is now against it. Somehow, everybody seemed to forget that. She never publicly say she was wrong or sorry or whatever. I don't expect her though. I don't expect people really care either.


I don't know. Every time I watch politicians on tv, I just get this gut feeling that they're not telling the truth or maybe not the whole truth. Politicians respond to the funding they get, not what the people want. They say all this stuff about how they want to end the war, but then suddenly all of the Democrats say that they can't end the war until 2013 (whatever that means). It just doesn't make sense to me.


Oh yeah...I don't know why I'm ranting.

[edit]I just realized that I already ranted a similar topic in the first page. Oh well. Can't go wrong to re-read it again, lol.[/edit]

Dead Inside - October 3, 2007 12:03 AM (GMT)
Really, I don't give a s**t.

All candidates arn't gonna do what they say, and we should all know that by now.

Zunder - October 26, 2007 03:22 PM (GMT)
No more Bush. I am British so I don't really know any other candidates. Just pull out of fucking Iraq. That's why I hate bush, he makes himself look like an a** in front of the Queen of England.

simplyatbliss - October 26, 2007 07:11 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Zunder @ Oct 26 2007, 09:22 AM)
No more Bush. I am British so I don't really know any other candidates. Just pull out of fucking Iraq. That's why I hate bush, he makes himself look like an a** in front of the Queen of England.

I thought British people don't really care about the Queen of England that much.

Roselite - November 9, 2007 12:36 AM (GMT)
Britain and England are the same place, so they of course care about their queen! lol

Anyways, Hilary gets my vote.

Syarith - November 9, 2007 01:10 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roselite @ Nov 8 2007, 06:36 PM)
Britain and England are the same place, so they of course care about their queen! lol

Anyways, Hilary gets my vote.

My US history teacher doesnt wanna vote for her because she's an "elitist".

But he(my US history teacher) did say she was making decent progress.. I'm not sure of the other candidates however.

Iko - November 9, 2007 01:14 AM (GMT)
I'mma Democrat..XD But I'm not officially into poltics yet, they havnt interested me..XD

demon_of_darkness - November 12, 2007 06:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Iko @ Nov 8 2007, 07:14 PM)
I'mma Democrat..XD But I'm not officially into poltics yet, they havnt interested me..XD

Then why do you say your a democrat then?

simplyatbliss - November 12, 2007 08:42 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Roselite @ Nov 8 2007, 06:36 PM)
Britain and England are the same place, so they of course care about their queen! lol

I know that...I'm referring to all British people...

Meredith - November 12, 2007 11:54 PM (GMT)
I think the best person for the job is Barack Obama. He hasn't spent years in Washington, becoming a part of the "good ol' boy" network of politics. He is well-spoken and well-educated. He rocks!
user posted image

Drgnmastr_Alex - November 24, 2007 09:15 PM (GMT)
Technically, the Republicans and the Democrats are the same party anyway, and like what was said, they're politicians. They don't care about us. They just want our votes and money so when they finally get past the election stage they can do whatever they please. -.-

How about this? When a candadate comes around that says his or her plan to solve the national deficit is to take 90% of Hollywood's earnings from that point on, I will be first in line to GLOMP that individual.

Lord knows actors and actresses waste their money anyway.

Concrete Angel - November 24, 2007 09:24 PM (GMT)
Sorry, didn't read all the posts, but ha I'd love to see Condelisa Rice(spelling? :S) and Hilary Clinton have a mud wrestle over the Presidency. D: I really wish Rice would run. Just an opinion I got from a teacher of mine last year, of which I completely agree with.

aznshorty67 - November 26, 2007 11:31 PM (GMT)
Time to quote the entire thread haha.

QUOTE
On May 4, 2007, President George W. Bush signed an executive order that could ensure that he won't have to relinquish office in 2009. ~
Taken from High Times magazine October issue 2007.

The Supreme Court can declare an execute order unconstitutional, but only if its enacted.

QUOTE
In my personal Opinion Clinton was worse than Bush, el gasp.

What simplyatbliss said, wow :S
Clinton was a good president.

QUOTE
But it's because he's provided us with details and his word on what he'd do if he were President.
The others have, but then again, who the hell cares? Who ARE they?

Err, what? Nice logic :\

QUOTE
i love hilary's idea to give all babies born in the US $5,000 to save for educational purposes down the line. they would only get it once they graduate HS... and if they didnt want to use it to go to college, they could use it as a down payment on a house or something.

Why don't we just give all the poor people $100,000 so they won't be poor anymore?

QUOTE
that's amazing. plus, who do you think actually ran the house with clinton was in? HILARY. so i still would vote her.

Bill Clinton ran the house, who else?

QUOTE
I thought British people don't really care about the Queen of England that much.

They care alot about their queen, she's the figurehead of the nation. They don't care about her politically, because she's been stripped of her power, but she's still the queen.

QUOTE
Technically, the Republicans and the Democrats are the same party anyway, and like what was said, they're politicians. They don't care about us. They just want our votes and money so when they finally get past the election stage they can do whatever they please.

If you don't care about your constituents and do "whatever you please" then you don't get reelected, problem solved. Of course, this remains a problem when you have a lame duck.



simplyatbliss - November 27, 2007 12:04 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Concrete Angel @ Nov 24 2007, 03:24 PM)
Sorry, didn't read all the posts, but ha I'd love to see Condelisa Rice(spelling? :S) and Hilary Clinton have a mud wrestle over the Presidency.

Eww...




Hosted for free by InvisionFree