Obama, Huckabee win Iowa caucases

[Max™]

I hate all politicians, they're all evil sons of bitches, but Bush... well... he'd be a cool dude to hang out with when you were a teenager, cause you know he'd have good pot and buy you beer...

As the face of the country I live in? Not so cool.

Vote for Cthulhu in '08!
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia...-elections.gif

[evilbau]

What tax cuts? They only helped big business and the extremely wealthy.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/i ... guest.html Regardless of the site, that spreadsheet is from the IRS. And they aren't Bush's tax cuts, only congress has the power to levy taxes.

Why does it matter if people hate us? The crazy Islamists will hate us no matter what.

We cut more emissions than countries who did sign the Kyoto accords so why does it matter if we sign it? And the countries who don't meet the emissions requirements will be paying fines. Where do you think that money comes from? TAXES!

Tsunami aid? Why is it our responsibility to help them out? And I'm pretty sure we contributed more money than most other governments, and our Navy was pretty quick to respond. I didn't see any governments give us aid after Katrina.

Weak response to Katrina? How about the dumbass local government that didn't follow the evacuation plans they had set up? How about the governor not requesting the national guards help until AFTER Katrina had obliterated New Orleans. (President can't send in the troops without the governors permission, I think.)

Republicans are supposed to be the financially conservative ones but Bush ain't no conservative. He loves spending money just like the Democrats.

I'm not in support of Bush, it just seems like he catches a lot of BS for stuff that isn't true, Patriot act and Iraq war aside.

one by one...

yes congress is the one that levies taxes but it is the president who submits to budget. It may have republican representatives names on it but it is the leader (president or house majority/minority leaders) who submits and lobbies for its passing. This is the reality of how budgets are passed, not how it is outlined in the Constitution.

Kyoto - Yes, we cut the most emissions but we also emit the most emissions. President Bush wouldn't submit it to Congress to be ratified because china/india/etc. were exempt. Thats why I said he has valid reasons, other countries wouldn't be on board. This is why i said I was looking for a little leadership here because with a little bit of diplomacy we might have been able to get a good worldwide solution. Seems like a joke now to try to get China to do anything now because our credibility and international relations are so trashed. But that wasn't the case 7 years ago...

Katrina - I previously wrote how I thought President Bush took more flak than he deserved for this but that doesn't excuse the lackluster response.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168307,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168269,00.html
I don't know, sure sounds like they were asking for federal help for a national crisis.

Taxes - yeah i was making a joke about being the financially conservative ones, i was being nice when i said 'is asking for trouble'. Really, I think it is irresponsible and dangerous to cut revenue and increase spending. That was a nice link to Rush Limbaugh's site. NO CHANCE of it being biased. How is it relevant that the highest earning % of our population pays the majority of our taxes. This is obvious. This kind of logic is used to excuse paying taxes from the group that is most able to. They are obviously the ones reaping the most benefits from our society, as evidenced by their success. Even if they were taxed at the same rate as people who made far less money, they would still be contributing the majority of the tax revenue, because they make the most money. Those stats are meaningless.

I'm not a President Bush hater, and I hate irrational haters too. But I got reasons why I thought he was a mediocre president at best.

[evilbau]

Why does it matter if people hate us? The crazy Islamists will hate us no matter what.

Tsunami aid? Why is it our responsibility to help them out? And I'm pretty sure we contributed more money than most other governments, and our Navy was pretty quick to respond. I didn't see any governments give us aid after Katrina.

oops missed a couple

Tsunami aid - we did give a lot eventually but maybe this little excerpt from wiki will help you get the picture

The president was beginning his post-Christmas vacation at his Crawford, Texas ranch when he was informed of the devastating tsunami. The first estimates of casualties by the event were 22,000 people killed, of whom, six were Americans. Bush said the earthquake was a "terrible loss of life and suffering". A $15 million aid package was put together to help the Asian countries suffering from the devastation. Immediately after, the US and other Western nations were criticised first by the UN and then by The New York Times for not giving enough and being "stingy". They also claimed that this was half as much as Republicans were planning to spend on inauguration festivities; however, that money would all come from private donors. The New York Times also criticised Bush for waiting three days to express his condolences to the countries hit by the disaster.

Further criticism pointed to undelivered relief funds for the 2003 Earthquake in Iran and also that foreign aid money makes up less than one quarter of one percent of the United States budget. As further details of the devastation were revealed, Bush stepped up US relief efforts to $35 million in response and sent his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to Asia to assess the damage. After Japan announced they were pledging US$500 million, the largest amount of any country so far and the death count was firmly stated as around 150,000, Bush again increased the United States aid package to $350 million, the second largest contribution. On February 9, as relief efforts continued to unfold, Bush asked Congress for a total of $950 million.

Whether its our responsibility or not, that is a personal question but as a bleeding heart liberal, I think we have an obligation as the remaining superpower to help the world in crisis. Its protects our business interests as well.

International perception - I am not talking solely about the Islamic Extremists, I am talking about (comparatively) moderate Arab governments who have to denounce us, NATO countries who disapprove of our actions and refuse to back us up. All this has the side effect of completely showing the uselessness of the U.N. (if it had any teeth before ) which is our little pet project to get the world on our side to agree to do what we want. But we still got the U.K. (nevermind that PM Blair lost all of his credibility too alongside us), so i guess we're straight.

[Turambar]

International perception - I am not talking solely about the Islamic Extremists, I am talking about (comparatively) moderate Arab governments who have to denounce us, NATO countries who disapprove of our actions and refuse to back us up. All this has the side effect of completely showing the uselessness of the U.N. (if it had any teeth before ) which is our little pet project to get the world on our side to agree to do what we want. But we still got the U.K. (nevermind that PM Blair lost all of his credibility too alongside us), so i guess we're straight.

Just as an aside, the "moderate" Arab governments have always voted against the US in the UN. It's not just because of Bush. Similarly, many NATO countries (France in particular) frequently voted against the US long before they were desecrating WW2 memorials in protest against the war. In any case, NATO and the UN were always jokes. NATO in particular was basically a unilateral treaty saying the US would help out the Europeans in case Ivan got too uppity.

[Zalius]

everybodys gonna grow a vag if hillary wins

[evilbau]

International perception - I am not talking solely about the Islamic Extremists, I am talking about (comparatively) moderate Arab governments who have to denounce us, NATO countries who disapprove of our actions and refuse to back us up. All this has the side effect of completely showing the uselessness of the U.N. (if it had any teeth before ) which is our little pet project to get the world on our side to agree to do what we want. But we still got the U.K. (nevermind that PM Blair lost all of his credibility too alongside us), so i guess we're straight.

Just as an aside, the "moderate" Arab governments have always voted against the US in the UN. It's not just because of Bush. Similarly, many NATO countries (France in particular) frequently voted against the US long before they were desecrating WW2 memorials in protest against the war. In any case, NATO and the UN were always jokes. NATO in particular was basically a unilateral treaty saying the US would help out the Europeans in case Ivan got too uppity.

you're right. NATO was not always a joke though, notably in the midst of the Cold War. But your points are right and we always did rub some governments the wrong way but we certainly aren't making it better was my point. And having President Bush as the face of US Leadership was my original point that i didn't clarify here.

[Olo401]

I have a question for you. If you hate Bush for reasons other than the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, what are they? Aside from those two things he's the same as any democrat out there, which the majority of people on this board seem to be.

Non-comprehensive list
Withdrawing US from the Kyoto Accords (his reasons are valid but i was looking for a little leadership here)
Crony-ism to loyal supporters and the resulting scandals
Illegal wire-tapping/attempting to expand powers of the presidency
Lack of follow-through in Afghanistan
Weak response to Katrina
Insufficient aid to Tsunami victims (initially $15 mil lol)
Being an embarrassing face of the United States (international perception)

there are others but thats off the top of my head

- A half-assed attempt to reform the educational system which resulted in entire school departments rigging their own test results so they could get funding
- Legal system reforms that simply delay financial ruin for millions of citizens
- Politicizing every single department of the federal government, from U.S. Attorneys to the National Park Service employees
- Deliberately ignoring the greatest terrorist threat in the world of the last 25 years less than 2 years after they accomplished their most murderous feat, in order to pursue a family vendetta
- Systematically redistributing the majority of wealth in the nation, and possibly the world, into the hands of less than 1% of the population while the rest of us sit at the edge of societal ruin
- Continually violating the laws of the country and the Constitution, and then having the nerve to claim ignorance, misdirection, idiocy and, worst of all, privilege granted by their own twisting of the same laws and the Constitution.

I could go on for longer if you wish..

[Correction]

I have a question for you. If you hate Bush for reasons other than the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, what are they? Aside from those two things he's the same as any democrat out there, which the majority of people on this board seem to be.

Most of the time it's his catastrophic inability to be diplomatic in ways that cost american lives.

"Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" -- State of the Union from 2001

"Bring 'em on!" -- Taunting insurgents in 2003

The fucker simply doesn't learn. If you subtract the two worst things of his presidency I guess you start running out of things to hate, but how is that to his credit?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm not a fan of Bush, don't mistake me there, I've just never heard anything else other than the Patriot Act and the Iraq war and a few other misinformed things as reasons he sucks. Was just curious.

[Beckwin]

Ready for some Godwin?!?

"If you hate Hitler for reasons other than the invasion of European nations and killing 6 million Jews, what are they?"

Fucking brilliant.

Anyway to rerail, Obama's strong showing here is really exciting. He's been kind of pegged as an underdog for the Dems in spite of his popularity surge over the past few years, but this is definitely redefining the Democrat race. I also liked how, as mentioned in the article, the dem candidates have really avoided potshots so far. I think Edwards was catching a little heat earlier for Hillary bashing, but all in all it's been very tame. This is important aside from just being respectable people- the Dems need to work a lot on party cohesiveness and cooperativeness. I'm going to be pleased regardless of the results if the democratic candidates treat each other as more than just competition for the same job- I want them to see the competition as their future running mate, cabinet members, allies in the Senate, etc. Dems have had Congress now for well over a year and not much to show for it, and not to mention two really demoralizing presidential elections in a row. Time to get the shit together and actually make some changes, as a team.

I saw Obama speak a few months ago at my campus. The man can talk. He's got a powerful voice and good speech writers. There's also this quality of his on the fringes that hints at humbleness and well, being human. It's kinda hard to explain, but slight crackles and mannerisms here and there just allude to that, for me. In contrast I guess, I find Hillary to be very well-spoken and bold in speech, but when she tries to show friendliness or humor it just kind of feels forced, in the way of a semi-obnoxious news anchor or sales presentation.

My only hope on the Republican side is McCain. Romney and Huckabee both seem like decent and respectable men on a basic level (although I'll be waiting to eat my words when the next round of pedo-IMs and men's room fiascoes roll around), but, especially with Huckabee, the fundamentalism (and outwardness of it) is troubling. I wouldn't say I worry about either plunging us back into the Dark Ages, but either of those men in office really put Roe v. Wade and hopes for gay rights at risk, among other things (I actually worry about siphoning educational spending to private school vouchers, etc. stem cell research has made scientific strides to skip over embryos, but there's still a stigma about "building blocks of life" that might not shore up support from a religious and conservative government). McCain will probably do well in the northeast and west, although now would really be the perfect time for him to become the maverick again, because his pandering to the GOP in the past 8 years not only degraded my opinion of him, but I think even a lot of Republicans are fed up with the current administration.

[BIGSTIC]

Watched all the speaches last night and over 3 hours of comentary and all i know is i wish it was November right now. This MONTHS of political BS gets old fast. One thing to remeber is most who win Iowa tend to lose bad in the end. Hell Dole won Iowa, now he is the speaker of Viagra. Of all the speeches Clinton did the least for me. Being I would consider myself a conservative indapendent LOL I am very disatisfied with my vote for Bush just because he never grew a set of balls. But Hillary pretty much said in her speach that she could care less about my vote, since i aint a dem, so i guess she wont get it. Edwards preached a BS line about Big Business when i am guessing that his MILLIONS of support came from por folk on the street ? yeah right. Also he thinks he can fix health care? He made his personal fortune suing doctors, can you say confilct of intrest. Obama was good and i like his "honesty" and felt like he was actually careing but well yeah just dont see it happening. Huckabee is just laughable. Havent heard anything i actually like come out of his mouth. Romny makes me cringe on numerous lvls. Mcain and Thopson make me smile. For some reason i could see them actually do something but then i remeber that the president is just a puppet on a string to the business with the most $$$. I find it disgusting that these cantidates spend more money in one week trying to get a vote than i will see in my lifetime. Honestly i am glad i live in montana where my vote dont me didly squat to the presidential election becasue honestly as of right now they all look like fail to me. Yeah i will still vote because i dont think you got shit to complain if you dont vote but i am getting tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils rather than votiong for some one i can stand behind.

BTW: if you want entertainment. get XM and listen to America Right half the day and Air America the other half. It will make you LOL all day long
Sry for the rant but i am drunk and getting tired of the po;itical talk at bars already and we got what 10 months left

[Poopfacekilla]

I feel like alot of people will vote for these people based on their personality rather than their politics.

Anyways, here's a great site that points out misleading claims made in politics. They've been having a field-day with these candidates.

http://www.factcheck.org/

As they describe themselves:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

[Kurp]

I feel like alot of people will vote for these people based on their personality rather than their politics.

There's more to being a leader than just a voting record.

[Poopfacekilla]

No shit. I never implied there wasn't.

But I could careless about 'personality'. Everyone's on the same playing field in that regard. Everyone has a PR consultant. Everyone does a photo-op of some kind. This is all common for these people. That's one thing that's become routine for them - developing an image.

Clearly, I wouldn't vote for a fucking child molestor. Why should I give a fuck if one guy's grumpy and another is sunny-side-up?

I don't think you can really know what they're like anyways. Afterall, they want to be President. It's a safe bet they're portraying themselves in the best possible light.

The policies they present should be the major basis for a persons decision. The candidate can be very endearing but a complete incompetant in-office.

This isn't American Idol or a fucking beauty pageant - although it's run the same way.

My point was that I 'think' alot of people base their decision MORE on personality because it's much more easily understood. It's far easier to go with your 'gut' feeling about a candidate then to have an educated opinion on the policies they promote and context and facts surrounding world issues.

I just don't think most people are smart - actually, I know most people aren't smart.

[Saga]

But I could careless about 'personality'. Everyone's on the same playing field in that regard.

sorry, what?

[sexxxytaru]

Sorry, but Obama scares the hell out of me. *Throw shit at me now*

[finale23]

Obama scares the hell out of me.

because he's black? there i said it.

[sexxxytaru]

*Sigh* Somehow I ALWAYS turn into a racist when I admit that I don't like Obama.

[Kuya]

*Sigh* Somehow I ALWAYS turn into a racist when I admit that I don't like Obama.

Sorry, but Obama scares the hell out of me.

Maybe it's because you don't elaborate on your vague sentences.

[finale23]

*Sigh* Somehow I ALWAYS turn into a racist when I admit that I don't like Obama.

Sorry, but Obama scares the hell out of me.

Maybe it's because you don't elaborate on your vague sentences.

this