Jump to content
Science Forums

Who would you like to see as the next US President?

Turtle

By Turtle
in The Lounge

 Share

Who would you like to see as the next US President?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Who would you like to see as the next US President?

    • Gene Amondson
      0
    • Hillary Clinton
      13
    • Mike Huckabee
      3
    • Duncan Hunter
      0
    • John McCain
      2
    • Brian Moore
      0
    • Ralph Nader
      5
    • Barack Obama
      27
    • Diane Beall Templin
      2
    • Other
      8

Recommended Posts

Turtle Newbie

Turtle

Posted
  • Author
Posted
first-philanderer...

 

Shouldn't that be first black philanderer? ;) Maybe we should wait though until Barack sees Bill dance. :)

 

Saturday Night Live did a great job roasting the candidates with impersonations last weekend, and Hillary was on and Mike Huckabee did a spot on the news lampooning himself. Maybe we should suggest they get Root on there? They can start with lampooning his initials: WAR ;)

 

Tonight should be quite interesting as the primary results come in. It's a popcorn & beer night over here. :rolleyes:

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

CraigD
CraigD

I agree that the distinction between “guerrilla” and “terrorist” is often unclear and semantic.  The distinction C1ay draws: guerrillas fight an invading force, terrorists attack non-combatants, is, I

Jay-qu
Jay-qu

A gay black female muslim

Pyrotex
Pyrotex

BARACK TO THE FUTURE /forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

C1ay Newbie

C1ay

Posted
Posted
Wayne Root looks interesting, but I'm not too keen on his environmental stance.

 

From his web site:

 

I support Environmental moderation- I believe global warming is a danger to our planet earth, but at a rate far less dangerous, damaging and destructive than hysterical liberal alarmists and environmental extremists like Al Gore proclaim. I believe that we need to act to prevent further potential catastrophic damage to our planet. But I would not institute drastic laws, or agree to global standards that erode our American way of life, damage our economy, or cost millions of jobs. Rather I'd invest in what Newt Gingrich calls a "Scientific Revolution" that promotes capitalism and creates more jobs- through tax incentives that encourage new breakthroughs in science, space, alternative energy, and the environment.

 

Which part are you uncomfortable with?

freeztar Newbie

freeztar

Posted
Posted
From his web site:

 

Which part are you uncomfortable with?

 

Environmental moderation. It sounds like a description of Bush's current environmental policies. :rolleyes:

 

Also, I don't feel that the environment and the economy need to be mutually exclusive arenas. Though he doesn't explicitly state it, I get the impression that he does not fully share my views from this statement: "I would not institute drastic laws, or agree to global standards that erode our American way of life, damage our economy, or cost millions of jobs". Without knowing what "drastic" means in this context, it's hard to say for sure.

 

Furthermore, I'm just wary of libertarianism's general regard for the environment, as something better to be regulated by capitalism rather than the gov't. Don't get me wrong, in general I despise big government ("...governs least, governs best"), but the environment is not something I'm comfortable with handing over to capitalistic regulation.

modest Newbie

modest

Posted
Posted
I voted other, but favor Wayne Allyn Root

 

Wayne Root looks interesting, but I'm not too keen on his environmental stance.

 

Though he doesn't explicitly state it, I get the impression that he does not fully share my views from this statement: "I would not institute drastic laws, or agree to global standards that erode our American way of life, damage our economy, or cost millions of jobs". Without knowing what "drastic"

 

There are areas where a hard-line libertarian stance is very appealing. Personally I'd like to keep government away from "the internets"

 

But, most libertarians and Wayne Root in particular don't seem to know when to draw the line between something best situated in the private sector versus the collective effort of government.

 

Health care, law enforcement, and education should be (in my opinion) government funded and government run institutions. Obviously there's a right way and a wrong way for government to run them and that's where a libertarian view can come in handy. But, completely axing these programs is far from sensible. As Root says in his blog:

I will cut entire Cabinet Departments whose existence is not authorized by the Constitution (starting with the Department of Education).

Which is why a hard-line libertarian could never be president. Government (despite its evils) gets a lot done. There is collective power there which you wouldn't get any other way. A libertarian United States never would have helped win WWII, never would have gone to the moon, probably wouldn't even have interstate highways.

 

Everyone loves to hate government, but anyone who's seen Deadwood knows humanity is not very appealing without it.

 

-modest

REASON Newbie

REASON

Posted
Posted
i'm an american so i couldn't vote for a terrorist or anything of Wet Willy's

 

Your obvious implication here is that Barack Obama is a terrorist. Of course this is completely fallacious, ridiculous, and typical coming from you.

 

As an American though, you are entitled to your fallacious and ridiculous opinion.

 

But, whether you know it or not, you'd be better off by not allowing yourself to be herded around so much by your talk radio shepherds. They're only helping you to appear uneducated, not a genius.

Essay Newbie

Essay

Posted
Posted
BARACK TO THE FUTURE
/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

Very Clever! LOL

 

I think electing Obama would be the best way that we could apologize to the rest of the world.

 

...maybe even as the veep.

goku Newbie

goku

Posted
Posted
Your obvious implication here is that Barack Obama is a terrorist. Of course this is completely fallacious, ridiculous, and typical coming from you.

 

As an American though, you are entitled to your fallacious and ridiculous opinion.

 

But, whether you know it or not, you'd be better off by not allowing yourself to be herded around so much by your talk radio shepherds. They're only helping you to appear uneducated, not a genius.

 

why didn't a japenese man run for president after pearl harbor?

 

when america falls you will have two choices, become islamic or die.

that is our enemy, that is what we are facing.

REASON Newbie

REASON

Posted
Posted
why didn't a japenese man run for president after pearl harbor?

 

when america falls you will have two choices, become islamic or die.

that is our enemy, that is what we are facing.

 

That is nonsense. :eek:

 

Barack Obama is not a Muslim, no matter what your mental mentors are able to convince you. He was born in Honolulu. His father, a Kenyan economist, and his white mother from Kansas, divorced when he was two and he spent his early childhood in Indonesia, raised by his mother. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991, and he has attended the same Christian church for 20 years. Your ignorance appears to be vast. You should read more instead of listening to morons who prey on people who are easy to manipulate.

 

I understand if you don't prefer him because he's a Democrat, but these other assertions of yours are absurd.

 

Also, Islamophobia does nothing to improve relations and quell violence, unless it's violence you want.

InfiniteNow Newbie

InfiniteNow

Posted
Posted
It's completely irrelevant to me. Pledging allegiance to a flag has always seemed a bit superficial to me anyways. I used to openly rebel against saying the pledge in high school.

 

Also it's completely false, as is explicitly shown in the video I shared in the post immediately above C1ay's.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...