Hillary or Obama

[Armistead]

She obviously won't run against him in 12, maybe later in life, but if you had a choice between the two in 12 which one would you prefer.


If Hillary somehow ran in 12, do you think she would pull more moderates.

Course I'm sure Obama will win and willing to bet on it now....any takers.

[Aramike]

Actually, looking at gas prices, if they hit $5 Obama is good as gone.

I would prefer Hillary though, but in the same way I prefer a rectal exam over open heart surgery.

[Rilder]

They are both politicians soooo, start them both on fire and be done with it along with all the rest of the politicians. :O:

Edit: On a serious note, don't care.

[Aramike]

Star them both on fire and be done with it? :O:Ouch.:timeout:

[Rilder]

Ouch.:timeout:

I edited it to be a bit more clear. I am the resident Pyschopath after all. :haha:

[Aramike]

I edited it to be a bit more clear. I am the resident Pyschopath after all. :haha:Heh, probably a good idea. :ping:

[Growler]

I'll have the chicken.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I realize that this is supposed to be a purely hypothetical question, but it's a lot more realistic than one might suppose. Not in the sense that we might see another Hillary v Obama ticket, but in the sense that pretty much any president we elect is going to have to cater to leftist interests and economic values to some degree. All presidents in this century have had to do that. It's not a matter of who is in office so much as it is a matter of what system they live in, much as you or I compromise our personal values to retain our employment.

We often view politicians as liars or cheats or opportunists, seeking gain where they can and abandoning their ideals where it is convenient, and this view is largely correct.... but how often do we ask ourselves why this is so?

The truth is that they are the way they are because we have created preconditions that essentially force them to be this way. They have to gather party support whilst simultaneously retaining the support of the multitudinous and therefore fickle (remember, these are people we're talking about) masses and also cater to the special interests who largely fund their bids. It's an impossible job with many mutually exclusive goals, and that's without taking sensitive matters of national security into concern. In addition, they also have to have reasonable knowledge of the most complex legal code in the world. And that's the situation for the completely moral and saintly politicians. One can hardly imagine how a politician with a personal agenda (again, these are people we're talking about) to push might reconcile all of those factors, which handily explains why politicians are largely viewed as failures and idiots. None of this is surprising. None of it should be surprising. This is stuff everyone already knows. And yet, somehow, we blame politicians for failures in government.

The fact of the matter is that we don't like to blame ourselves for the failures of our government. We put it in place. We insisted upon it. We demanded that government make our decisions for us in a way that we would find beneficial and agreeable. We wanted all good and no bad and we wanted someone else to do it for us. My apologies, ladies and gentlemen, but that ain't how the world works. What we often consider to be "the world" consists of people who are little different from ourselves. Demonstrate what an exemplar of social beneficence you are and I will listen to your cries for social equality that you readily heap upon others but do not take upon yourself.

It is time that we changed this utterly idiotic and irresponsible system. It is time that we take responsibility for ourselves, rather than handing it off to people who specialize in exploiting our whims in a legal sense and then changing them when our whims change. Law and reason must not bend to the tyranny of the masses or the autocrat.

It should be clear to all members the major parties that we have been had. You may agree with my logic and you may not but it is clear that the system we have is not working. Do not hope in vain for a political saviour that will set things right. We, ourselves, have made such a thing impossible through nothing more than our opinions and the fact that we are people. We say that we are a nation of laws, but we remain a nation of people, and the laws that people effect.

I say that it is high time that we removed the part of the law that is governed by people. There is too much room for interpretation, and too much room for exploitation. Why not codify the law of the land in an even stricter sense than those who drafted the constitution envisioned? Why not take away the false comfort provided by an interpreted constitution that has obviously failed? Why not make our own decisions?

America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. That principle has made us great in an unprecedented span of time. Why should we abandon it?

[August]

I'd choose neither. I never vote in primaries.

[krashkart]

I don't know if I would vote for either of them -- depends on who all runs and who can keep it together. I was really close to voting for McCain last time around but he seemed to get flustered too easily at times. Also his attitude toward Putin. Didn't like the idea of another Cold War starting.

If Biden ran I'd probably vote for him. I mean, at least that way we would have the full story on things regardless of what the Press Secretary is allowed to release. :O:

[GoldenRivet]

wow... ok


its like. would you rather have your eyes gouged out with a steak knife or a butter knife?




God willing - neither will be president in 2012

[mookiemookie]

Neither. Kucinich. :woot:

[krashkart]

wow... ok


its like. would you rather have your eyes gouged out with a steak knife or a butter knife?




God willing - neither will be president in 2012

Neither. Kucinich. :woot:


You would rather have your eyes gouged out with Dennis Kucinich? :06:

:D

:gulp:

[les green01]

neithier one of them 2 i rather vote my dog in,least he cant spend the money like they have

[nikimcbee]

neithier one of them 2 i rather vote my dog in,least he cant spend the money like they have

:sign_yeah:

[nikimcbee]

Neither. Kucinich. :woot:

So what do you like about Kucinich that obama doesn't do?

[Platapus]

McKinney/Kucinich 2012

They are what's right about America. :O:

[nikimcbee]

McKinney/Kucinich 2012

They are what's right about America. :O:

Who's the first dude?

What about Nader?

[mookiemookie]

Who's the first dude?

McKinney? She's batsheet. She's the one who assaulted the Capitol Police officer when he tried to stop her for skating past the metal detector. She brought us wonderful pieces of legislation like the Tupac Shakur Records Act. :roll:

So what do you like about Kucinich that obama doesn't do?

She'd make one hell of a first lady. :woot:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/dennis-and-elizabeth-kucinich.-p-1820-20071119-4.jpg

Seriously though, while I don't agree with all of his stances (gun control, namely) I do like a lot of Kucinich's ideas. Especially the one about bringing our troops home. Something Obama promised but hasn't delivered.

[Platapus]

McKinney? She's batsheet. She's the one who assaulted the Capitol Police officer when he tried to stop her for skating past the metal detector. She brought us wonderful pieces of legislation like the Tupac Shakur Records Act. :roll:





Cynthia McKinney. Makes Sara look knowledgeable and competent at times. :up: