• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Who are you leaning towards?

Actually Geraldo Rivera was on Fox News this morning and was talking about that. Like the poll we have about the canditates flaws and that he is not supported enough, when people should be proud of his background,and they are not judging him on his experience and his qualities.

beergoodI watch a lot of news, and as I said before these were things floating around. I can't be the only one who heard that he has a muslim name etc.. and then with the preist.

I know it's gossip , but they are being said.I don't just sit down and think things up.
 
It isn't so much that he's been punished for serving his country; it's that after all these years of this idiotic war, people are very leery of his apparent enthusiasm for continuing it.
 
Champagne said:
It isn't so much that he's been punished for serving his country; it's that after all these years of this idiotic war, people are very leery of his apparent enthusiasm for continuing it.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant, I didn't put it in the right words. People are scared because of this war , and are forgetting that he is the most qualified and experienced.
 
Libra said:
People are scared because of this war , and are forgetting that he is the most qualified and experienced.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just don't agree that having been in a war once is necessarily the most important qualification and experience a president can have.
 
Knowing how to kill people is not generally a good indication that a person is well suited to running a country.
 
beer good said:
Or maybe they just don't agree that having been in a war once is necessarily the most important qualification and experience a president can have.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but don't you think that if this war hadn't gone on for so long we would have a different perception of the candidates?
 
Well, yeah. If there hadn't been a war on, then people wouldn't have had a war to be tired of, and the candidate promising to continue and expand that war (for 10,000 years or so) might not even have been nominated. But I don't see how that's anything but an academic question.
 
The way I see it, in any election, the candidates can be classed as such:

S--t
S--t with sugar
S--t with peanuts

It doesn't matter who you vote for because it all tastes like crap!
 
I'm not so sure that it doesn't matter who you vote for. I seriously doubt that Al Gore or John McCain, if either had won in 2000, would have landed us in this idiotic war in Iraq. Even though McCain is now misguided enough to believe that this war is winnable and the insurgents and terrorists can be exterminated, I think he'd have had more sense than to start it in the first place.
 
I'd have to disagree as well that it doesn't matter who you vote for. Whether it is 2000 or 2008, you have some huge differences. Each candidate would appoint members to the Supreme Court with radically different views on abortion, state's rights, and the role of government in society. The "strict constructionists" would be appointed by republicans and the "living consitutionalists" would be appointed by democrats-those are not small differences folks. Champagne is correct in regards to differences regarding the Iraq war. Gore would've approached Iraq with a more cautious role, while the president wanted the war no matter what.
 
I think it's interesting that in this election the "values" candidates haven't done so well. Maybe we've finally reached the point where people's concern about their own future in terms of whether they'll still have a home, a job, or any savings in a couple of years' time has become more important than their desire to use the law and the Constitution to impose their beliefs about what other people may or may not do in bed.
 
Actually, what I was trying to say is that no matter who you vote for they will all screw you in the end. Sure, some are better than others but they all have their hidden agendas. Be it war, higher taxes or job losses. They all suck.
 
Well, unfortunately I think that's probably true, especially in systems like the US one, where raising money for election is so important. It means the eventual winner is under a deep obligation to the organisations that bankrolled him, and those organisations usually have very different priorities from those of the ordinary voter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top