The man belongs in the white house

You guys need to quit associating Obama so much with his church leader. Your pastor tells you that smoking weed and drinking are a sin, do you still do it? yes. You don't have to agree with somebody to go to their church. Honestly, in my opinion, it was great to see what his pastor had to say because that's what black people go through every day of their life in America. This is the kind of anger that is still built up inside of black people today in America and having Obama as president, a man who understands this kind of anger, will be a very good way to fix a lot of that problem. His whole thing is change, and one HUGE change we need to make is to unite as a country. NOT white america, black america, asian america, or mexican america, or whatever race, but United States of America.

Also, don't underestimate Obama's talent of being an amazing orator. Ronald Reagan had the same talent of public speaking, and he put our country in a time of unity and prosperity because of it. He made people believe in his plan which gave him support which then created prosperity. If you can speak, then YES YOU CAN lead.
 
it doesnt matter if he is the president people in a america are to stubborn to move away from white america, black america, asian america and mexican america as sad as it is thats just how it will be.
 
Not really, actually it really opened my eyes to a lot of other possible candidates in the race, like I would not have heard of Ron Paul if it weren't for Rez4Frederick and It.milo and K2Tanner raving about how amazing he is, even though I don't want him to be president, he has a pretty cool perspective on stuff, like true conservatism, that most people should see. I know this is a ski website and we are all here to have fun and be positive or whatever, but I think that it's good to see different political perspectives.
 
Funny you mention, because 99% of my friends smoke weed, and I don't. Some people I meet do "assume" I'm a pot head judging by the lifestyle I live and people I associate with.

You say:

"if you hangout with a crew full of pot heads i am just going to assume u smoke a bunch of weed"
and
"the people you are friends with directly reflects on you as a person"

This is your problem, you make a decision when you've barely skimmed the surface.

Making a decision before you know the real truth is a problem. By definition, an assumption is to accept something as truth or as certainty, without proof. You should think about that. I know it doesn't matter or won't affect anything by assuming someone is a stoner, but continuing to make decisions and formulating opinions based on assumptions is a bad habit to get into, especially in politics.

 
I dont even nned to say anything to that cause your just making yourself look even dumber than you already are.
 
Obama has stated that he does not agree with his statements, watch his speech, I don't care if you guys like Obama or not, but he made some excellent points in that speech.

And as for that comparison I threw out there, I agree it was a poor one.
 
it really is good to see as many as possible views, encouraging conversation, and argument is good.

that is, arguments, with more words than faggot and fuck face written all over. I know , I know guys, sometimes it's hard to resist calling people names, and I'm definitely not innocent when it comes to that hahah but when you think about it, it's just retarded. Isn't it you fucking faggots?
 
My sarcasm meter isn't registering on this, but I really hope it would be going crazy if it was working.
 
Hot4hill!

flash_video_placeholder.png


 
maybe you missed it, but i respect the man for his philanthropy, fighting for human rights and social justice, and habitat for humanity, his time in the white house might not have been the greatest in terms of american success, but the US was coming back from JFK being assasinated not to mention Nixon / Ford

 
ya carter was not a good president but he was a good person. it was a tough period for him. dont get me wrong george bush is not a good president but economically speaking besides the war which is causing some problems. we have a mortgage problem that is cause by companies taking much of the work over seas cause major pay cuts and the loss of jobs. 10 years ago people assembling cars in Detroit would get paid almost 90k a year for doing almost nothing. since then they have had their salaries cut almost in half. when u are making a good amount of money and take money out and buy a nice house then you lose your job or lose almost all of what you are making that is going to cause serious financial problems for you. this happened to a ton of people. Then you can say Clinton was a good president because the economy was good, well that really had nothing to do with him he was lucky enough to be the president during the ".com" boom when everyone was rolling in cash like no ones business after 5 or 6 years that started to change and Bush was in office. once again i am not saying Bush is a good president and is not to blame for some of the problems, but you must look beyond the war in Iraq sure it costs money and a lot of it but in retrospect it is not that expensive and very few lives are being lost. Obviously no lives should be lost but it is what happens with war. If anyone wants to argue with me on these points go ahead i am not going to say much because i know what i am saying is true, i go to school for this stuff and no not community college a very well respected school on the east coast.

cheers
 
not that expesive?

### Iraq War Cost
flash_video_placeholder.png


(if that dosen't work, we've spent over half a trillion dollars) $500,000,000,000.00

do you realize how much that is? Hardly "not that exspensive"

We've lost 4,000 soldiers, and more than 1,000,000 iraqi civilians have been killed.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "few" but i'm sure that 4,000 americans is not a few, and i know 1,000,000 lives is not a few.

Now congratulations on your enrolment at a "very well respected school on the east coast" but aparently they haven't taught you numbers yet.
 
carter might have had good intentions but he screwed up big time...

carter was also buddies with Fidel Castro

Jimmy

Carter was a relentless supporter of the Castro-aligned Marxist

Sandinistas of Nicaragua, doing all in his power to keep their leader

Daniel Ortega in power and undermine President Ronald Reagan’s attempts

to restore freedom to this Central America nation. And both as

President and since, Carter has befriended Fidel Castro and sought to

end the bipartisan trade embargo against this country (the same kind of

embargo Carter eagerly supported against non-Communist white-ruled

Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa).

Carter

has always claimed to favor "human rights." In the name of such rights

he as President withdrew U.S. support for the Shah of Iran because the

Shah had imprisoned (and in some cases tortured) about 3,000 people,

many of them agents of the Soviet Union bordering his nation. Because

of Carter, this pro-Western leader was replaced by the fanatic

anti-Western Muslim theocracy of the Ayatollah Khomeni.

The

Ayatollah’s dictatorship immediately put more than 20,000 pro-Western

Iranians before firing squads. It reversed the Shah’s opening to

Western culture and rolled back the equal rights he had extended to

women. And it promptly plunged Iran into war with neighboring Iraq, a

war that never would have happened with the Shah in power – a war that

killed more than 500,000 people. It also created the regional

instabilities that led to Iraq’s later invasion of Kuwait and to

Operation Desert Storm, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands

more.

 
what was the cost of nam, wwi, wwii, gulf war? half a trillion dollars is not that much for a war i am sorry that you are miss informed and think that at it is. Ya we shouldnt have to spend that much but in the long run that is not that much money for the US government and a war. 4,000 soldiers for a 5 year long war is not that much either once again 0 would be a better number but that wouldnt be right. Speaking of Iraqi's did u know that Mr. Hussein although never found guilty has been suspected of killing upwards of 2 million iraqis hell if you spoke out against him you would have people busting down your door and cutting your tongue out, thats probably something else you didnt know.

Numbers is what I deal with. Finance Major. I can tell you that ya half a trillion dollars is a lot of money but we have much bigger problems in the United States. Go to school stop reading and believing everything you hear on the internet.
 
ROFL. The pro-Western leader was replaced because he was head of a puppet government that was never supported by the people he ruled over in the first place. That doesn't tend to work out well, ever. I don't know what Carter did exactly, but it was the people that removed the Shah from power.
 
This is another problem of yours.

You KNOW.

Don't know. Think, and accept that your thoughts very well could be a completely distorted view of reality. I do, and everyone should. Putting up the curtain and shunning away anything other than what you want to hear and think is ignorant and definitely not a philosophically wise thing to do.
 
and your problem is, you dont know. you feed off of bullshit that is put out there by democrats. i would say 85% or more of news stations are ran by democrats. Maybe what they are saying is true maybe it isnt thats not the point im trying to make. the point i am making is that there are other reason besides this war that are making america suck. i said like 5 times that i dont agree with most of the iraq war. you just need to get over it and realize there is more to this than a war. numbers mean something you just telling me you know something does not. you can see the numbers for yourself. this war is high not as high as others, the economy sucks and the major reason isnt the war look at numbers.
 
-The Vietnam War ended up costing the US around $133 billion.

The vietnam war (even after factoring in inflation) didn't cost nearly as much as the war in Iraq. Also a full blown war was fought there for 7 years-ish.

World War 2 and 1 costed so much because so much of the world was involved and if you're talking just about the states they fought 2 wars (in ww2) across two different oceans at the same time. Iraq is one war, in one small country so that's why the cost of Iraq can't hold a candle to WW2 or WW1, it's stupid comparing the two.
 
i was elected to lead not to read

-the simpsons movie

any way i am for mccain especailly if it becomes a mccain / gullianni ticket. if obama actually gets elected i give it 18 months till he takes a hit. pretty shitty but that is or world
 
Vietnam $133b

WWI $169.5b (adjusted to USD for 1990)

WWII $2,091b (adjustd to USD for 1990)

Gulf War $61.b

so speak numbers to me my friend

 
Those numbers are relatively correct, i've looked them up at a few other sources. The Vietnam one is 99% correct within a certain margin.
 
ooh ooh you forgot to compare the casualty counts! Oh wait, though if you did, then you would come across as wrong. I know, I know, 4000 lives is too many to lose. But compared to Vietnam and WWII? 4000 Americans died on D-Day alone. But then again, WWII was a different story... it was in FDR's best interests to have a lot of Americans die. It solved the unemployment problem. But I digress... My point is that not many Americans have died compared to these other wars that you are comparing to this one.
 
Yeah not many americans died but, there are millions of innocent Iraqi's who have. and weve basically destroyed their country to pieces.
 
anybody ever seen The Breakfast Club?

where bender goes, "sir why does Andrew get to get up? If he gets up, we'll all get up! It'll be ANARCHY!"

haha
 
Wow. Reagan must have been a really brave hero for supporting the contras. Do you have any idea of what actually went on in Nicaragua or did you just hear the word communist and freak out? Please respond and try to explain why you think Reagan's policy was so admirable here, I'd like to hear your perspective.
 
I feel like we're just picking the lesser of two evils for president.

And this thread really made me realize that political dirt digging is probably a very big business. It's sorta impressive in a sick way.
 
um i simply copy pasted a article i found interesting on Jimmy carter..... im not here to defend Reagan, i dont agree with some of his policy's...... read down a few posts and you will see i forgot to supply a link, then i caught my mistake and posted it.....

the thing i find most amusing is "carter's" relationship with one of the most horrifying dictators in recent history(aka castro)

plus i dont see the word Reagan in my copy paste article once..

 
wow! give me the golden wheelchair award..................... disregard this, its 5am and i just GOT HOME from working, hehehehe im a little tired....
 
Isnt that all they do anyways....get real politics are a joke.

There will never be a perfect system where everyone gets what they want.

Lets just make sure McCain does not win.
 
Thanks for failing to make your point clear. I was talking strictly about how much each war cost the government and public . You can't weigh how bad a war was by averaging costs with causality counts, you'd make every dead vet roll over in their graves. And once again I would like to reiterate how you cannot compare the scale of Iraq with the scale of WW1 and WW2 and I don't think you can compare the scale of D-Day with any single battle in Iraq.

I can't stress enough here, the SCALE of Iraq cannot compare itself to the SCALE of WW1-2 so please do not associate them together. Same goes for Korea and Vietnam on a lesser but still greater than Iraq scale.
 
Ok... so you basically just copied an article to smear Carter, without actually thinking about what it meant. The whole first half of that was about Carter's policies vs. Reagan's policies in Nicaragua. Carter was supporting a relatively legitimate government which was elected by a democratic process. Reagan didn't like that because they had populist, anti-imperialist leanings, which I think is pretty understandable for a region which has been absolutely shat on and robbed of much of it's wealth for two hundred plus years. Reagan then instituted a ton of policies to support a revolutionary group (the Contras) who were responsible for many unspeakable human rights violations, and intentional massacres of civilians. (This is not to say the Sandinistas were perfect, they had their share of abuses as well, but nothing like the Contras.) When the congress no longer wanted to fund the Contras, the Reagan administration illegally diverted funds from the sale of US weapons to Iran and sent them to the Contras, basically spitting in the face of the basic checks and balances our forefathers put in place when building our government. This is what is known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

So again, I'd like to know what you found so objectionable about Carter's policies in Nicaragua. It seems to me that the Nicaraguan people would probably think much more highly of America had we not gotten involved in the way that we did, and funded the terrible bloodshed and devastation that they once again were subjected too.

I'm pretty sick, so I'm not even gonna get into Iran, but I'd really encourage you to consider the history and try to gain a basic understanding of a region before passing judgment on someone's policies there. There are a huge amount of extremely negative long-term effects that come from propping up puppet governments, which will almost never last anyways.
 
HA. Please. Castro was nothing compared to Pinochet. And if you want to really get down to mass murder by US backing, you cant forget Israel, Afghanistan, Colombia and Indonesia.
 
If you can't compare the SCALE of the wars (and therefore cannot compare the casualty numbers), then why can you compare the costs? If the SCALES are so far off then why do you still compare the cost of Vietnam to the cost of Iraq? Flawed logic, my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top