Who are YOU going to vote for?

College Confidential Community
61

<ol>
<li>Dennis Kucinich</li>
<li>John Edwards</li>
<li>Barack Obama</li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
For the person afraid of republicans, you know nothing about politics. George Bush is not a true republican. Ronald Reagan is.

[/quote]
That doesn't help your argument much. :P</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ronald Reagan, the man who...ended the Cold War

[/quote]
LOL</p>

<p>
[quote]
Want more government, more lawyers, less of your hard-earned money, more terrorist attacks, more regulation, a slower economy, then vote Democratic.

[/quote]
Someone took the party bait hook, line, and sinker.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Soviets already tried socialism, why do so many people want to try it here?

[/quote]
If you really think that socialism == communism, you should go back to school. I think it's you that knows nothing about politics...</p>

<p>
[quote]
the Democratic party...is...further and further away from what the most brilliant men, the founding fathers, wanted.

[/quote]
You know, the Founding Fathers scrapped the Articles of Confederation for a reason. To claim that the Founding Fathers would have approved of a weak federal government is pure ignorance. Like it or not, America cannot survive with a weak federal government. History has proven this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You may not like the war in Iraq, but how many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11?

[/quote]
Logical fallacy. Ever since I bought that box of clementines for breakfast, I haven't gotten a date... therefore those clementines are preventing me from getting a date!</p>

62

<p>I'm 18, so I can vote.</p>

<p>CLINTON!!!</p>

63

<p>Ronald Reagan's biggest crimes were the bloody military actions to suppress social and political change in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Afghanistan. </p>

<p>I REALLY DON'T WANT ANOTHER PRESIDENT LIKE RONALD REAGAN, "real republican" or not. What kind of horrible person would suggest something like that? </p>

<p>"ended the Cold War" ---> Can you go educate yourself? He didn't "end" the Cold War, he PROLONGED it. -.-</p>

<p>I'm voting Clinton all the way. What do you mean she doesn't speak her views because corporations are busy giving her $$. How hard is it to go on hillaryclinton.com and go over her viewpoint on certain issues???!!</p>

64

<p>Jarn has it right.</p>

65

<p>"You may not like the war in Iraq, but how many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11?"</p>

<p>What GRADE are you in? How in the world, in this day in age, can you think that Iraq and 9/11 are connected?? The president himself has admitted that there is NO link and the white house created an impression that there was one to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and to demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime. Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence have said there's zero evidence that Hussein played a role in 9/11 or aided Al Qaeda. The Bush Administration deceived and used the emotions of American citizens to sell and go to this stupid war.</p>

<p>I'm kind of scared that there are still Americans out there who mesh 9/11 and Iraq together....I mean, what exactly do you think we're doing there now?? o.O</p>

66

<p>"I'm kind of scared that there are still Americans out there who mesh 9/11 and Iraq together"</p>

<p>It's like the book 1984, where the party believes that the past is alterable. We're changing the past, basically, if the past exists only in our minds and in records. Records can be destroyed and our minds can be controlled. Back when this war started, everyone thought it was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Now, it has been shown that all of that is false. But there are still people out there that believe it, still people that connect 9/11 and the Iraq War. For these people, the government has altered the past. They believe what the government told them, and they won't remember that it's known to be false. That Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq WAS connected to Al Qaeda, that Iraq DID have something to do with 9/11...for these people, that is the past.</p>

67

<p>"You may not like the war in Iraq, but how many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11"</p>

<p>Actually, the number of terrorist attacks internationally has risen dramatically since the U.S. started the war in Iraq AKA Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL!).</p>

68

<p>^haha. OIL. Ironic.</p>

<p>I agree. I've definitely never heard of so many terrorist attacks all over the world before.</p>

69

<p>"You may not like the war in Iraq, but how many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11?"- liberal nutjob</p>

<p>What GRADE are you in? How in the world, in this day in age, can you think that Iraq and 9/11 are connected??"</p>

<p>Ever heard of Ansar al Islam: it is a terrorist affiliate of Al Queda, one that Saddam Hussein gave free reign to in Iraq. Do you think it is a good idea to condone the condonement and support of radical jihadists by islamo-facist extremists? I don't. Excuse me for not wanting another 9/11. In a day and age where nuclear weapons make us so vulnerable, we must do everything possible to suppress the activity of terrorists. Look, we didn't find any WMD's, but it doesn't mean that they were not there, and it certainly does not refute the fact that Hussein was supporting Ansar al Islam. Looks like you need to go back to school.</p>

<p>"The Soviets already tried socialism, why do so many people want to try it here?
If you really think that socialism == communism, you should go back to school. I think it's you that knows nothing about politics..." -liberal nutjob</p>

<p>Communism is Socialism. Marx composed the communist manifesto. However, I realize that your ignorant mind is currently thinking of Lenin Communism, which I will be happy to elaborate on. The only two differences between Marxist communism/socialism and Lenin Communism is that Lenin communism included agricultural workers to the revolution as well as an elite to catalyze the synthesis initially proposed in Hegel's dialectic. The same basic principle of sharing still applies, as does the same basic principle of humans are inherently altruistic. If you believe that, then you should go back to school. Humans are inherently self-interested, and thus the manager of resources, i.e. the government of a socialist or communist or Lenin communist nation, will inevitably take more resources than they allot to the people, promoting repression and serious loss of civil liberties.</p>

<p>" Ronald Reagan, the man who...ended the Cold War
LOL" -moronic liberal </p>

<p>Not sure what you're laughing about. Reagan unleashed the powers of ingenuity associated by capitalism by out developing Soviet technology as well as creating the myth of Star Wars, a myth that he got the Soviets to believe. Eventually the Soviets could not keep up with the tech that the U.S. was creating. They eventually went bankrupt, and virtually all the Soviets suffered from lack of motivation associated with socialism.</p>

<p>"You may not like the war in Iraq, but how many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11"</p>

<p>Actually, the number of terrorist attacks internationally has risen dramatically since the U.S. started the war in Iraq AKA Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL!)."</p>

<p>Ignorance is bliss applies to you. How many in the U.S. was what I as aiming at. Sorry for not being more clear.</p>

<pre><code>"Ronald Reagan's biggest crimes were the bloody military actions to suppress social and political change in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Afghanistan.
</code></pre>

<p>I REALLY DON'T WANT ANOTHER PRESIDENT LIKE RONALD REAGAN, "real republican" or not. What kind of horrible person would suggest something like that?</p>

<p>"ended the Cold War" ---> Can you go educate yourself? He didn't "end" the Cold War, he PROLONGED it. -.-</p>

<p>I'm voting Clinton all the way. What do you mean she doesn't speak her views because corporations are busy giving her $$. How hard is it to go on hillaryclinton.com and go over her viewpoint on certain issues???!!"</p>

<p>About Reagan's "crimes". I am not even sure he suppressed change in any of these countries. In Afghanistan, he promoted it by arming the Taliban to fight the soviets, a controversial move, but one that helped us win the cold war. The fact that you are not aware of this really enlightens me on why you are voting for hillary clinton. Every heard of whitewater? Check her flip-flop on the Iraq war? Want to ruin the greatest health care system in the history of the world? Want to promote the killing of innocent Children, those still unborn? Want to increase the national debt? Want more taxes? </p>

<p>"the Democratic party...is...further and further away from what the most brilliant men, the founding fathers, wanted.
You know, the Founding Fathers scrapped the Articles of Confederation for a reason. To claim that the Founding Fathers would have approved of a weak federal government is pure ignorance. Like it or not, America cannot survive with a weak federal government. History has proven this."</p>

<p>Who wants the Articles of Confederation to be reenacted? You need to go back to school to learn how to stop putting words in my mouth. I want the Constitution, which in this day and age is too hard to get. Where does the constitution validate universal healthcare? Where does the original constitution allow for the insanely high income tax? The founding fathers were followers of John Locke. Thank you very much, but I am student of history. Locke proposed a limited government with the consent of the governed. Should the gov. be taking away up to 39% of our income? Should it be providing healthcare? Where are getting these ideas? Karl Marx? Communism on a large scale does not worK. Locke's beliefs have also led to the 2nd amendment, which is so vital b/c it allows to overthrow the gov. if it gains to much control and runs our lives. I believe in freedom, so did the founding fathers. Socialism and big gov. , tenets of the Democrats, are contrary to freedom. Wake up!!!</p>

<p>"You may not like the war in Iraq, but how many terrorist attacks have we had since 9/11?
Logical fallacy. Ever since I bought that box of clementines for breakfast, I haven't gotten a date... therefore those clementines are preventing me from getting a date!"</p>

<p>No its not, there is a definite Connection. See above Iraq post. Fact is al queda is fighting ( and losing according to Gen Petreaus) us in Iraq, which is better than if they were flying planes into buildings here.</p>

70

<p>This forum makes me sick!!! and wastes my time responding to those who resist self-education in favor of mindlessly following whatever CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, or any other liberally slanted news network tells them. Same goes for Fox news and republicans. Expose yourself to both and make the right decision. You can even do some research online. Please refute my arguments with credible sources. I relish the opportunity to be proven wrong b/c of the extensive research, self-education, and self-questioning I put myself through. Socrates said question everything, and I wholeheartedly agree.</p>

71

<p>It was the condonement of terrorism that the U.S. went after as well as the WMD's. Regardless of the fact that we did not find the WMD's, we knew that Sadam was supporting Ansar al Islam. Read the 9/11 commission report. If you don't find that credible, then I cannot help you ignorance. Bush's hard stance on terrorism as well as those who condone terrorists has deterred the terrorists from attacking. Contrast this with Clinton who responded to U.S.S. Cole, 93 Trade Center Bombings, Embassy bombings in Kenya, by doing absolutely nothing, afraid that his public support would go down if he did. A result was Bin Laden saw the U.S. as a paper tiger, which, under Clinton it was. Stationing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved to the terrorists the U.S.'s resolve, it has forced them to rethink their strategy on attacking the infidel. If you think my statements are absurd, then you must think Hillary is absurd too. She said she would go after nations would in any way support terrorism. She voted for the iraq war, but changed once popular support decreased. Iraq did threaten us by allowing terrorist activity as well as possibly having chemical armaments in the hands of a crazy madman like Hussein. </p>

<p>Read the 9/11 commision report if you don't believe me. Or better yet, study history. "Those who don't remember the past are condemned by it"- George Santayana.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
Ansar al Islam...is a terrorist affiliate of Al Queda, one that Saddam Hussein gave free reign to in Iraq

[/quote]

Wrong. Hussein did NOT give free reign to Ansar al-Islam in Iraq. The leader of Ansar al-Islam himself has said that he hated Hussein and wanted to overthrow him. Further, why would al-Qeada even want to be associated with Saddam Hussein? They were religious fundamentalists and Hussein was part of the secular Ba'th party. Bin Laden himself had al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq, working against Saddam.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I realize that your ignorant mind is currently thinking of Lenin Communism, which I will be happy to elaborate on. The only two differences between Marxist communism/socialism and Lenin Communism is that Lenin communism included agricultural workers to the revolution as well as an elite to catalyze the synthesis initially proposed in Hegel's dialectic. The same basic principle of sharing still applies, as does the same basic principle of humans are inherently altruistic.

[/quote]

That is a strawman argument, sir. I know very well what Leninism is but it bears no relevance to the phrase of mine that you replied to. You claimed that the Soviets implemented Socialism and I said that they did not, but rather Communism. Unless you're going to try to argue that Leninism is not a form of communism, you're wrong. Further, Classical Marxism and Leninism are much farther apart than what you have indicated, but that is an argument for another time and another place.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Reagan unleashed the powers of ingenuity associated by capitalism by out developing Soviet technology as well as creating the myth of Star Wars, a myth that he got the Soviets to believe. Eventually the Soviets could not keep up with the tech that the U.S. was creating. They eventually went bankrupt, and virtually all the Soviets suffered from lack of motivation associated with socialism.

[/quote]

The fact that you think that Star Wars was a myth shows a lot about your grasp of history: nonexistant. Star Wars was an actual proposal that was actually researched and actually had work go into it, though it was never completed as Reagan had envisioned. It is completely and totally revisionist history to say that it was a myth Reagan created to outfox the Soviets. More than anything else, the Soviets collapsed because of their own failed economic and social policies. Even before Reagan took office, the Soviet people had already grown disillusioned with their leaders. This culminated in the election of Mikhail Gorbachev. When Mikhail Gorbachev took office in 1985, he immediately began supporting economic reforms and other things (look up glasnost, perestroika, and demokratizatsiya). Reagan happened to be in the right place at the right time. His rampant spending and cutting taxes did little to help the Soviets, though it has screwed us for generations to come. Currently, 10% of all the money the government spends is to pay INTEREST on the federal debt. That is all. Interest. We are not even paying it off at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
[The United States has] the greatest health care system in the history of the world

[/quote]

Yeah, umm... just to let you know, the United States of America spends more than any other country (currently 15% of GDP) on health care, and yet the WHO has ranked us 37th based on quality of health care. We spend the most and only get 37th best. The UK ranks 16th and spends 6% of their GDP on health care.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Who wants the Articles of Confederation to be reenacted? You need to go back to school to learn how to stop putting words in my mouth. I want the Constitution, which in this day and age is too hard to get.

[/quote]

You apparently do. If it's in the Constitution, you can't claim that it is "unconstitutional." It's contrary to common sense, the English Language, and Samuel Johnson (just so you know, that was a joke - Samuel Johnson wrote A Dictionary of the English Language).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Where does the original constitution allow for the insanely high income tax

[/quote]

It doesn't, but the original constitution DOES allow for us to change it. To claim that it should not be changed is, itself, unconstitutional. Also, "insanely high" is subjective - that's lower than a lot of countries.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Locke proposed a limited government with the consent of the governed.

[/quote]

Locke believed in banning together for the mutual protection of life and liberty. (Locke also believed that humans were characterized by reason and tolerance, by the way, and that selfishness, was both against human nature but allowed for by human nature because of free will - that is to say, man is inherently altruistic but they can change.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Where are getting these ideas [of health care]?

[/quote]
Perhaps from... the Constitution itself?</p>

<p>
[quote]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[/quote]

It's pretty clear that the Constitution aims to promote the general welfare of the country. You would think, having spoken so much about the Constitution and what is "unconstitutional," you would have taken the effort to read it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Socialism and big gov. , tenets of the Democrats, are contrary to freedom. Wake up!!!

[/quote]
Merely appending "Wake up!!!" and other derogatory phrases does not make your conclusions (or your assumptions) right. Socialism and big government are not tenets of the Democratic party. The ideal government of the Democratic party is about equal in size to the ideal government of the Republican party. However, they spend money in different areas. Republicans would spend a lot of money on defense and would also be paying a lot of the interest on the national debt. Democrats, meanwhile, would have a smaller national debt - thus little interest to pay on it - and would spend more on programs that benefit the people's day-to-day lives, such as health care.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fact is al queda is fighting ( and losing according to Gen Petreaus) us in Iraq

[/quote]

They were not there from the beginning, though. They came once we did. They came in late 2003/early 2004. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Saddam Hussein had no ties with al-Qaeda.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This forum makes me sick!!! and wastes my time responding to those who resist self-education in favor of mindlessly following...any...slanted news network tells them.

[/quote]

For railing against self-education, there sure is a lot in your post that can be shown to have been wrong with a simple internet search, a book, or even - <em>gasp</em> - common sense!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Read the 9/11 commission report.

[/quote]
Maybe you should do that, too. It says there is no credible evidence supporting links between Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Bush's hard stance on terrorism as well as those who condone terrorists has deterred the terrorists from attacking.

[/quote]
Both the FBI and the CIA disagree with you. (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4358628.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4358628.stm&lt;/a> and <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE1D8123FF935A35750C0A9659C8B63%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE1D8123FF935A35750C0A9659C8B63&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
[Hillary Clinton] voted for the iraq war, but changed once popular support decreased.

[/quote]
That's one way to interpret it. Or you could say that she changed her opinion once it turned out that all our original intelligence about Iraq was wrong (links to al-Qaeda, WMDs).</p>

73

<p>Clinton. If Obama gets the nomination, I'd vote for him. Then Edwards. I dislike all the Republican candidates as of now (and I have no "absolute" loyalty to the Democratic Party, just to my own beliefs), especially Ron Paul and Huckabee. Two of the biggest idiots there.</p>

74

<ol>
<li>Rudy</li>
<li>Romney</li>
<li>McCain</li>
</ol>

<p><em>dashes from persecution of liberal kids</em></p>

75

<p>Obama For Sure</p>

76

<p>wasableglue,</p>

<p>I AM PRO CLINTON!! LEt the world know haha.</p>

77

<p>New member here! Obama has my vote. Husband (long standing democrat who has NEVER voted republican) says he'll vote republican if Hillary gets the nomination. We voted for Bill in both elections when he was president, but feel he's acting very unpresidential. More and more, they come across as "win at any cost" types who are in it for their own personal glory. </p>

<p>Regarding experience: both Clinton and Obama has been senators for a short while. Before that, I believe Obama was active at the state level and they both have experience in the private sector. Hillary was first lady - I'm not sure how that qualifies as experience. </p>

<p>NY Times endorsed Hillary. It's the first time I disagree with my favorite newspaper.</p>

78

<p>Oops, I didn't proofread: both Clinton and Obama HAVE been senators...</p>

79

<p>"the leader of Ansar al-Islam himself has said that he hated Hussein and wanted to overthrow him." Well then why did Hussein give him free reign.</p>

80

<p>"You claimed that the Soviets implemented Socialism and I said that they did not, but rather Communism. Unless you're going to try to argue that Leninism is not a form of communism, you're wrong. Further, Classical Marxism and Leninism are much farther apart than what you have indicated, but that is an argument for another time and another place."</p>

<p>Let's hear the differences. I don't want excuses.</p>

<p>The Soviets did implement Leninism, a form of communism, which is a form of Socialism. The basic principle of Socialism is the communal sharing of resources, obviously something that will never succeed on a macro scale b/c humans are not perfect.</p>