Obama and autism

Post Reply New Topic

At least he isn't a murder suspect who had an affair with a priest.

Frankly, it isn't any of your business. Bush DID get a bum rap for a lot of things. People wouldn't like to mention it, but Clinton's Admin basically tried to look good at the expense of the country. They freed up banks(Allowing easier credit, and helping to create later bankruptcies), lowered rates(Allowing easier credit, and helping to create the mess we are in now with a bad real estate market, tons of defaults, etc.... SURE, the stock market went SKY HIGH, on VAPOR that dissappeared, etc... He EVEN knew about UBL and left Bush with THAT garbage. And clinton freed up trade with China, and EVEN declared Groom lake IMMUNE to any environmental concerns! BTW The stock market would have been OBLITERATED if not for curbs put in during 1987. I watched during the dot bomb fiasco. MOST of the time it said "curbs in"! TRANSLATION? "The market moved more than 75 points so, to prevent the 1987 problem reagan had, we have STOPPED trading to allow us to better match sales with buys to better maintain price stability."

Still, ALL presidents generally promise the moon, and deliver little. At least they deliver little to the average guy just wanting to get by.

you could vote for Ron Paul then; basically the same for what you are talking about.

(also enjoy your 4 more years of Bush-sorry for the snipe )

erm..aren't the french poking Sarkozy about his Wife and martial issues?

Ron Paul isn't running anymore and what are you talking about "4 more years of Bush?" His term is about up and he can't be president again. It's going to be Obama or McCain.

he still is
http://www.newsweek.com/id/124451



I was referring to his policies-the guy admitted he will continue and agrees with Bush on a large portion of the issues-not to mention bleeding the US in Iraq.

The lesser evil is Obama!

I think what Warsie meant about four more years of Bush was that McCain's political positions over the past 8 years are not notably different from those of Bush, nor are those of his runningmate. McCain has basically said that he's going to continue the general course of things with regards to Iraq, for instance. Different names, the same general philosophy of extreme social conservatism and rashly getting into wars.

technically that is a trade and economic union-no political uniting. Though yes I get your point



it depends on how the NWO is formed. Whether it's the pacifist 'all nations unite under a idealistic world democracy' no no puppets ere needed. if it's the 'totalitarian evil NWO' yes it is.

It depends on your opinion on how a World Government would come into being..

For all we know, YOU are obama! It WILL be interesting though. Some women seemed to like hillary ONLY because she was a woman. Maybe they can vote for a woman VP! In fact, one complaint people have about Mccain is his age. If he DOES die, SHE will be president. As for ME, I don't care WHO is president. I just want the president to have the US best interest at heart.

Gov. Sarah Palin sounds like she might be a good president! She sounds SERIOUS about family values, decent, and it sounds like she has done well by Alaska, and that they like her! Of course, I doubt mccain will die soon, but he might just step down to give her a chance in 2012. Maybe she will run against HILLARY! Then SHE can say SHE has the experience, and hillary is too old! WHAT A RIDE! IMAGINE! Some women might vote for mccain JUST so the next ticket has TWO women running!

ooh....



uh-oh..... "Family Values"

I guess that means more moderation and nazification of the internet, crackdown on videogames, music, etc...




I think half the nation would not vote-as literally there is no lesser evil there..and we all know why..

Well, The clintons in one DNC once said THEY HAD FAMILY VALUES! SO, at this point, to belittle such a statement is to call them hypocrits and/or LIARS! SO, do you want to retract that statement!



WHY!?!?!?

Ron Paul is friend to the elves.

I don't know about you guys, but I'd much prefer the nation's efforts to be directed towards helping those people who are sentient and sapient enough to feel pain and know they need help. The only reasons I can think of for considering outlawing abortion before instituting a national health care system of some sort and seriously reforming the education system are that people are cheap (and banning things costs them less money than fixing things); and that babies, especially unborn babies who aren't screaming and pooping all over the place yet, are much easier to anthropomorphosize into whatever easy-to-sell, easy-to-digest ideology one wants them to be, whereas an elderly cancer patient or an inner-city school child is just there, with their real-life personalities and real-life problems that are much more complicated to deal with. For all the Democrat's overuse of the "think of the children!" tactic, it's still not as intellectually dishonest and without a sense of priority as placing beings who have yet to be aware of so much as their own existence over those who suffer and struggle and fall despite their best efforts day after day because the system doesn't care.

Morals and values and words like that get thrown around a lot during these discussions. I think real "morality" comes from dealing with those problems that happen right under your nose that you might not want to notice because you might be implicated or you think the victims brought it upon themselves or it's just too damn inconvenient, actually helping those people however difficult it will be, rather than fighting the fight that's easier, both practically and psychologically. In this respect, Barack Obama, who has fought for the poor and continues to pledge his support for the underdog, has more character than John "Nation of Whiners" McCain, who sees suffering and chooses to paint it as weakness.

no, as the Clintons are moderates (aka mainstream and all that stuff...) who pulled this BS "Third Way"; mainstream social policy (see "Defense of Marriage' and those Internet laws) BS, his attacks on Serbia via NATO, various bombings and sanctions against Iraq, etc.

Don't forget the Waco Massacre given Reno was appointed by Clinton and he had no problem with it....

For Lewinsky he's a pimp there

His Foreign Policy and some (nay....arguably a LOT) of his domestic policy is sh***y. Howard Zinn goes into more detail on how he screwed the lower classes.



*looks around*

<_< <_> >_>

because Hillary is a b***h. And arguably her rival would be too. and before I get misognyistic I;ll leave it at that..

Real Alaskan citizen here.


I think Sarah Palin is great. She's really cracked down on corruption up here, in her own party even. She's a great governer, and certainly has more experience than obama.

Havnt really decided which side to vote for, but I know I won't be disappointed with Sarah Palin if mccain wins and she becomes the real VP or perhaps eventually the president eventually.


And warsie i hope you don't do all your political research on /b/ :b

I agree about Hillary, but it looks like Palin ISN'T! As for you being misogynistic? That isn't your only problem. It IS nice that you owned up to it though. Maybe one day you'll learn they aren't all bad.

And I apologize to the women offended because sald Hillary was a B****, but it really IS simply a more descriptive way to saying words I HAVE applied to men. Frankly, I think it would be NEAT if the first woman president, or even VP, was one of the better presidents or VPs. Hillary wouldn't have been.