Obama WILL be the next president

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Asheran Mojomaster
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1457
Joined: November 22, 2002, 8:56 pm
Location: In The Cloud

Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Asheran Mojomaster »

After his SC win, and his amazingly strong momentum, I am going to go ahead and say Obama will not only win the Democratic nomination, but the presidency. I would of course prefer Ron Paul or Kucinich(and he dropped out), but unless Paul wins on Super Tuesday thats not going to happen.

I've read Obama's book and read a lot online about him and he seems like a genuinely honest and sincere guy. I don't agree with all of his ideas but I think he will do much more good than harm and be a huge change from the current leadership. Ted Kennedy is endorsing him now, not that I think Ted Kennedy is a great man but he has a lot of power, and he made one hell of a speech when he won at SC. I'm excited about the coming year. We just have to stay the fuck out of Iran, not piss anyone else off too bad, and keep our economy floating until then lol.
Image
User avatar
Asheran Mojomaster
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1457
Joined: November 22, 2002, 8:56 pm
Location: In The Cloud

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Asheran Mojomaster »

Oops, heres a link to his victory speech.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ
Image
User avatar
Xatrei
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2104
Joined: July 22, 2002, 4:28 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Boringham, AL

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Xatrei »

Ash, I've just got to ask this... What exactly is it that YOU like so much about that objectivist nut-sack Ron Paul? I know that Auburn is a bit of a libertarian bastion, and I totally get why some people of a particular political persuasion dig the guy. However, when you say that you prefer either Paul or Kucinich, I'm left completely baffled. These guys could not be bigger opposites politically if they tried. Of course they have some common ground with their anti-war positions, but the motivations for these positions come from radically different ideologies . Saying in one post that you like Obama, Kucinich, Kennedy and Ron Paul just seems so odd. Most Paul supporters that I've spoken to don't seem to grasp his political ideology. They just seem to latch onto his anti-war position or his 420-friendly decriminalization stance, and completely ignore the rest of his bat-shit-craziness. I'm not saying that's your situation, but the apparent inconsistency of your political preferences just has me curious.

I'm not bagging on you, I've just gotta know :) (Related reading: http://isreview.org/issues/57/rep-ronpaul.shtml)

By the way, I'm thinking that what we saw in SC is the beginning of a nation-wide rejection of Clinton, and that Obama will get the nomination. My choice, Edwards, is effectively out of it now, and I'll be shifting my allegiance to Obama after our primary on the 5th, barring a miracle turn-around by Edwards.
"When I was a kid, my father told me, 'Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.'" - Russel Ziskey
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27525
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Winnow »

Lets hope the nation is wise enough to boot Hillary out of the race. I'd like to see Obama vs McCain which appears to be our best options from both parties.
User avatar
Leonaerd
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3023
Joined: January 10, 2005, 10:38 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Leonaerd »

Winnow wrote:Lets hope the nation is wise enough to boot Hillary out of the race. I'd like to see Obama vs McCain which appears to be our best options from both parties.
McCain's more likely to win than Obama. He's white, religious, and not against guns.
Fairweather Pure
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8509
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: SillyEskimo

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Fairweather Pure »

Overall, Clinton has 249 delegates, followed by Obama with 167 and Edwards with 58.


Hillary is far from out of it, but it looks like Obama has turned a corner some time ago. It depends if people really want change or not. We'll see.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27525
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Winnow »

If Obama gets the nomination it will screw up my McCain/Hillary avatar bet with Seuven.
User avatar
Ashur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2604
Joined: May 14, 2003, 11:09 am
Location: Columbus OH
Contact:

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Ashur »

I predict a Clinton/Edwards ticket for the Democrats and McCain/Thompson for the Republicans with the Republicans taking the White House by a thin (not as thin as 2000/2004) margin.

EDIT: ... and Hillary will cry
- Ash
Wulfran
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1454
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Location: Lost...

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Wulfran »

Ashur wrote:... McCain/Thompson for the Republicans with the Republicans ...
Huckabee/Colbert!!! The Nation will be heard!!!
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
User avatar
Ashur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2604
Joined: May 14, 2003, 11:09 am
Location: Columbus OH
Contact:

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Ashur »

Wulfran wrote:Huckabee/Colbert!!! The Nation will be heard!!!
Jesus is Truthiness!
- Ash
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Zaelath »

I'll let Midnyte pick my avatar for 6 months if the USA elects a black(ish) man to the Presidency.

Obama might well win the primaries, but an actual election? The current hybrid of potato and chimp you have in office could beat him if he was found cornholing Tom Cruise in his office.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Hesten
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2620
Joined: April 29, 2003, 3:50 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Hesten »

Zaelath wrote:I'll let Midnyte pick my avatar for 6 months if the USA elects a black(ish) man to the Presidency.

Obama might well win the primaries, but an actual election? The current hybrid of potato and chimp you have in office could beat him if he was found cornholing Tom Cruise in his office.

I think youre right, doubt Obama can win, dont think enough americans have progressed enough to consider a black man for president, although I hope he'll win, he is my favorite at the moment.
Just as long as Huckabee dont get elected, if he do, the world are screwed.
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich"
User avatar
Noysyrump
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1201
Joined: January 19, 2004, 2:42 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Noysyrump »

Zaelath wrote:I'll let Midnyte pick my avatar for 6 months if the USA elects a black(ish) man to the Presidency.

Obama might well win the primaries, but an actual election? The current hybrid of potato and chimp you have in office could beat him if he was found cornholing Tom Cruise in his office.

That is of course... unfortunatley.... true.

I dont want Obama Sin Laden cause he's a democrat... But I loved Powel in 2000 (until he made it a race thing). But like you said... this country still just isnt ready for a black president.
Sick Balls!
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Sueven »

What did Powell do to "make it a race thing" in 2000? I don't even remember him running in 2000. Did he?
User avatar
Dregor Thule
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5994
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
PSN ID: dregor77
Location: Oakville, Ontario

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Dregor Thule »

Noysyrump wrote:I dont want Obama Sin Laden
Wow, just wow. I really expected better from you, NoysyKKKnazipedophilerump.
Image
User avatar
Asheran Mojomaster
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1457
Joined: November 22, 2002, 8:56 pm
Location: In The Cloud

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Asheran Mojomaster »

Xatrei wrote:Ash, I've just got to ask this... What exactly is it that YOU like so much about that objectivist nut-sack Ron Paul? I know that Auburn is a bit of a libertarian bastion, and I totally get why some people of a particular political persuasion dig the guy. However, when you say that you prefer either Paul or Kucinich, I'm left completely baffled. These guys could not be bigger opposites politically if they tried. Of course they have some common ground with their anti-war positions, but the motivations for these positions come from radically different ideologies . Saying in one post that you like Obama, Kucinich, Kennedy and Ron Paul just seems so odd. Most Paul supporters that I've spoken to don't seem to grasp his political ideology. They just seem to latch onto his anti-war position or his 420-friendly decriminalization stance, and completely ignore the rest of his bat-shit-craziness. I'm not saying that's your situation, but the apparent inconsistency of your political preferences just has me curious.

I'm not bagging on you, I've just gotta know :) (Related reading: http://isreview.org/issues/57/rep-ronpaul.shtml)

By the way, I'm thinking that what we saw in SC is the beginning of a nation-wide rejection of Clinton, and that Obama will get the nomination. My choice, Edwards, is effectively out of it now, and I'll be shifting my allegiance to Obama after our primary on the 5th, barring a miracle turn-around by Edwards.

I want the IRS gone, I want a full withdrawal from foreign countries, yes i want decriminalization of drugs, I want the PATRIOT act removed, I want a move back to what our constitution says and not what the current men in power think should be done. Thats why I like Paul. I disagree on abortion but thats about it. But if not him I like Kucinich, mostly for the anti-war stance and the fact that he wants to impeach Bush and Cheney. Obama comes in third because hes the best left out of the rest. He seems sincere and like he really wants to do good for our country. Since Paul and Kucinich are pretty much out hes my last hope for a decent president (in my opinion).
Image
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Fash »

I support the states having more control over issues rather than painting the country with a broad brush. I support the constitution and the rights it bestows. I believe the bigger a bureaucracy becomes the less efficient it operates, and that more infrastructure is not always necessary to solve a problem. I believe in privacy and security, at the same time. I believe in Ron Paul.
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
User avatar
Noysyrump
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1201
Joined: January 19, 2004, 2:42 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Noysyrump »

Dregor Thule wrote:
Noysyrump wrote:I dont want Obama Sin Laden
Wow, just wow. I really expected better from you, NoysyKKKnazipedophilerump.

That is not a racist comment on my part, that is a play on the fact that his name is too damn close to someone elses... If Adam Hisler was running for pres I'd say wtf to that too. (maybe they can be running mates)
Sick Balls!
User avatar
Dregor Thule
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5994
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
PSN ID: dregor77
Location: Oakville, Ontario

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Dregor Thule »

Noysyrump wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:
Noysyrump wrote:I dont want Obama Sin Laden
Wow, just wow. I really expected better from you, NoysyKKKnazipedophilerump.

That is not a racist comment on my part, that is a play on the fact that his name is too damn close to someone elses... If Adam Hisler was running for pres I'd say wtf to that too. (maybe they can be running mates)
Yes yes, I know, and it's not gay unless the balls touch.
Image
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Zaelath »

Fash wrote:I support the states having more control over issues rather than painting the country with a broad brush. I support the constitution and the rights it bestows. I believe the bigger a bureaucracy becomes the less efficient it operates, and that more infrastructure is not always necessary to solve a problem. I believe in privacy and security, at the same time. I believe in Ron Paul.
State law is retarded. Are you American or are you not? Why should it be legal for one American to do something that it's illegal for another to do?

The constitution is a "living document" and most of the crap that people grasp so desperately to protect are amendments anyway and not actually "the constitution" from a preservationist "nothing can be changed OMG" perspective.

I'll go along w/ less government, but I'd get rid of all state government, taxes, and laws.

As for privacy v's security. When you have a real threat to your security you should look at relaxing privacy, maybe (though probably not). In reality you don't have an (external) security problem in the US, at all, not even a little bit.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Sueven »

Xat wrote:However, when you say that you prefer either Paul or Kucinich, I'm left completely baffled.
I honestly don't think that this is particularly unusual. Paul and Kucinich have one big, important thing in common: They represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from American government as currently constituted. If you have someone who is angry at the Bush administration, angry at American politics in general, and wants a revolution, these are really your only two possible candidates. Sure, if you have a PARTICULAR revolution in mind, like a socialist revolution or a libertarian revolution, then the two are antithetical. However, if you just sort of want ANY revolution, and you just have a few general ideas as to what you'd like it to entail (get out of Iraq, let me smoke my weed, stop oppressing me), then Ron Paul and Kucinich can both be seen as viable options.

There's a surprising amount of support among Paul coming from young white men. I personally think that this is largely the result of the fact that the way in which Paul is offensive to liberals really doesn't affect young white men much-- they're not black people, who were the targets of Paul's "the LA riots only stopped when blacks had to go pick up their welfare checks" lines and they're not the ones affected by his opposition to large parts of the modern civil rights agenda; they're not women, some of whom are substantially concerned about his record on reproductive issues; they're not gays, who have watched Ron Paul violate his limited government and federalism principles by voicing his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively eliminates the Full Faith and Credit clause from the U.S. Constitution; they're not Jews, who have nervously watched him blame many of the worlds ills on "international bankers." If you eliminate all minorities from the equation, Paul's platform of cutting taxes, decreasing federal involvement in private life, withdrawing from Iraq and ending the drug war looks pretty fucking good from a liberal standpoint.
User avatar
Asheran Mojomaster
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1457
Joined: November 22, 2002, 8:56 pm
Location: In The Cloud

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Asheran Mojomaster »

Sueven wrote:
Xat wrote:However, when you say that you prefer either Paul or Kucinich, I'm left completely baffled.
I honestly don't think that this is particularly unusual. Paul and Kucinich have one big, important thing in common: They represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from American government as currently constituted. If you have someone who is angry at the Bush administration, angry at American politics in general, and wants a revolution, these are really your only two possible candidates. Sure, if you have a PARTICULAR revolution in mind, like a socialist revolution or a libertarian revolution, then the two are antithetical. However, if you just sort of want ANY revolution, and you just have a few general ideas as to what you'd like it to entail (get out of Iraq, let me smoke my weed, stop oppressing me), then Ron Paul and Kucinich can both be seen as viable options.

There's a surprising amount of support among Paul coming from young white men. I personally think that this is largely the result of the fact that the way in which Paul is offensive to liberals really doesn't affect young white men much-- they're not black people, who were the targets of Paul's "the LA riots only stopped when blacks had to go pick up their welfare checks" lines and they're not the ones affected by his opposition to large parts of the modern civil rights agenda; they're not women, some of whom are substantially concerned about his record on reproductive issues; they're not gays, who have watched Ron Paul violate his limited government and federalism principles by voicing his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively eliminates the Full Faith and Credit clause from the U.S. Constitution; they're not Jews, who have nervously watched him blame many of the worlds ills on "international bankers." If you eliminate all minorities from the equation, Paul's platform of cutting taxes, decreasing federal involvement in private life, withdrawing from Iraq and ending the drug war looks pretty fucking good from a liberal standpoint.

Wait wait, did you just defend the Federal Reserve? I never said Ron Paul was perfect, no one is, especially not politicians...but the Federal Reserve should not exist. Also his stance on abortion isn't that he believes it should be outlawed in the U.S., just that if any governmental body is going to put any limits or outlaw it it should be the STATES. I don't think the states should have that right either, but they have more right to it than the Federal Government.
Image
User avatar
Noysyrump
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1201
Joined: January 19, 2004, 2:42 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Noysyrump »

Zaelath wrote:
Fash wrote:I support the states having more control over issues rather than painting the country with a broad brush. I support the constitution and the rights it bestows. I believe the bigger a bureaucracy becomes the less efficient it operates, and that more infrastructure is not always necessary to solve a problem. I believe in privacy and security, at the same time. I believe in Ron Paul.
State law is retarded. Are you American or are you not? Why should it be legal for one American to do something that it's illegal for another to do?

The constitution is a "living document" and most of the crap that people grasp so desperately to protect are amendments anyway and not actually "the constitution" from a preservationist "nothing can be changed OMG" perspective.

I'll go along w/ less government, but I'd get rid of all state government, taxes, and laws.

As for privacy v's security. When you have a real threat to your security you should look at relaxing privacy, maybe (though probably not). In reality you don't have an (external) security problem in the US, at all, not even a little bit.

You just dont get it do you...

The states are in fact what make us FREE. you've heard of that word right? Freedom? I could care less if YOU want it but lord knows I DO!

I live in California. I hate the "liberal" Gov't that we have, but other aspects make this still a nice place to live. Now should those other aspects no longer outweigh what the Gov't does, I then AM FREE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE WICH DOES NOT RUIN MY LIVELYHOOD. Say maybe texas, one of the most conservative. When our federal Gov't takes away states rights they take away YOUR FREEDOM.

Why should some texan have the right to tell californians how to live there lives, he dont live here, he knows nothing about 'our way of life'. And visa-versa.

Its also a 'testing ground' for what works. look at Michegan. They tried maxing out taxes and what happens... mass exudus. economy in the dumps. Now if we let the federal gov't do something so drastic, we then, as individuals, have no recourse. We all must suffer. Or stop beeing an american, and move to canada.
Sick Balls!
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Sueven »

Ash wrote:Wait wait, did you just defend the Federal Reserve?
No.

Although I'd love to hear your coherent explanation for what's wrong with it, beyond simply grand statements of principle and cut-and-pastes from google!
Ash wrote:Also his stance on abortion isn't that he believes it should be outlawed in the U.S., just that if any governmental body is going to put any limits or outlaw it it should be the STATES. I don't think the states should have that right either, but they have more right to it than the Federal Government.
He's also the author of a bill to remove federal court jurisdiction over all issues of "life," which reveals his lack of skill in drafting statutory language, but more importantly reveals a betrayal of his principles of Constitutional fidelity:
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION wrote:Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...
Abortion arises under the 14th amendment's guarantee that life, liberty, and property shall not be taken without due process. This means that a challenge to any legislation regulating abortion is a case, in law, which arises under the Constitution, and therefore, the resolution of such a case is a matter for the judicial power. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. A bill to remove federal jurisdiction over abortion is DIRECTLY and BLATANTLY unconstitutional.

How have libertarians fallen for such a blatant pretender?

Edit to add: The fact that the bill applies only to federal courts is irrelevant. The 14th amendment has been incorporated as to the states, and thus state legislation affecting abortion also raises a federal constitutional question and is justiciable in federal court. Which is how Roe v. Wade got to the Supreme Court in the first place (it was a Texas statute in question).
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Zaelath »

Noysyrump wrote:
Zaelath wrote:
Fash wrote:I support the states having more control over issues rather than painting the country with a broad brush. I support the constitution and the rights it bestows. I believe the bigger a bureaucracy becomes the less efficient it operates, and that more infrastructure is not always necessary to solve a problem. I believe in privacy and security, at the same time. I believe in Ron Paul.
State law is retarded. Are you American or are you not? Why should it be legal for one American to do something that it's illegal for another to do?

The constitution is a "living document" and most of the crap that people grasp so desperately to protect are amendments anyway and not actually "the constitution" from a preservationist "nothing can be changed OMG" perspective.

I'll go along w/ less government, but I'd get rid of all state government, taxes, and laws.

As for privacy v's security. When you have a real threat to your security you should look at relaxing privacy, maybe (though probably not). In reality you don't have an (external) security problem in the US, at all, not even a little bit.

You just dont get it do you...

The states are in fact what make us FREE. you've heard of that word right? Freedom? I could care less if YOU want it but lord knows I DO!

I live in California. I hate the "liberal" Gov't that we have, but other aspects make this still a nice place to live. Now should those other aspects no longer outweigh what the Gov't does, I then AM FREE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE WICH DOES NOT RUIN MY LIVELYHOOD. Say maybe texas, one of the most conservative. When our federal Gov't takes away states rights they take away YOUR FREEDOM.

Why should some texan have the right to tell californians how to live there lives, he dont live here, he knows nothing about 'our way of life'. And visa-versa.

Its also a 'testing ground' for what works. look at Michegan. They tried maxing out taxes and what happens... mass exudus. economy in the dumps. Now if we let the federal gov't do something so drastic, we then, as individuals, have no recourse. We all must suffer. Or stop beeing an american, and move to canada.
You're funny. Or are you serious? Do you really think people a) have the ability to understand the intricacies of state law (and federal since they can and will overturn them if they see fit), b) the mobility, to just pick and choose what state they live in at will any time the state government changes hands? Or are you just another jackhole that thinks their way is the right way because they live, and will die, within 50 miles of where they were born?

You perhaps also missed the part where I suggested Michigan shouldn't be "free" to "max out taxes" as there shouldn't be any state taxes? Oh right, passion before logic and NIMBY thinking, I forgot. Why read when you can vomit back your conditioned thinking.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Asheran Mojomaster
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1457
Joined: November 22, 2002, 8:56 pm
Location: In The Cloud

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Asheran Mojomaster »

Sueven wrote:
Ash wrote:Wait wait, did you just defend the Federal Reserve?
No.

Although I'd love to hear your coherent explanation for what's wrong with it, beyond simply grand statements of principle and cut-and-pastes from google!
Ash wrote:Also his stance on abortion isn't that he believes it should be outlawed in the U.S., just that if any governmental body is going to put any limits or outlaw it it should be the STATES. I don't think the states should have that right either, but they have more right to it than the Federal Government.
He's also the author of a bill to remove federal court jurisdiction over all issues of "life," which reveals his lack of skill in drafting statutory language, but more importantly reveals a betrayal of his principles of Constitutional fidelity:
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION wrote:Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...
Abortion arises under the 14th amendment's guarantee that life, liberty, and property shall not be taken without due process. This means that a challenge to any legislation regulating abortion is a case, in law, which arises under the Constitution, and therefore, the resolution of such a case is a matter for the judicial power. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. A bill to remove federal jurisdiction over abortion is DIRECTLY and BLATANTLY unconstitutional.

How have libertarians fallen for such a blatant pretender?

Edit to add: The fact that the bill applies only to federal courts is irrelevant. The 14th amendment has been incorporated as to the states, and thus state legislation affecting abortion also raises a federal constitutional question and is justiciable in federal court. Which is how Roe v. Wade got to the Supreme Court in the first place (it was a Texas statute in question).
In order for a fetus to be protected by that, it must be proven to be a living being. I really don't know how that is going to be achieved as it is very hard to say when that moment is. Until that it is no more alive than my sperm or the cells living and dividing in my body. So no, that amendment should have no jurisdiction over the right to abortion until the exact moment that life begins can be absolutely proven.

And the Federal Reserve I have a problem with because of the secrecy surrounding it and the fact that I don't like a small group of people pretty much controlling all of the banks, interest rates, etc. in our country. Without the help of the government it would have never existed, and it should have never been created to begin with. Banks, like any other business, belong in the hands of the population and business owners...not the government and people working for\with them.
Image
User avatar
Boogahz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9438
Joined: July 6, 2002, 2:00 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: corin12
PSN ID: boog144
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Boogahz »

If the banks and business owners had full control of those things, do you honestly think it would be better?
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

Boogahz wrote:If the banks and business owners had full control of those things, do you honestly think it would be better?
No. People would get screwed over a couple times and beg for government intervention.
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Sueven »

Ash wrote:In order for a fetus to be protected by that, it must be proven to be a living being. I really don't know how that is going to be achieved as it is very hard to say when that moment is. Until that it is no more alive than my sperm or the cells living and dividing in my body. So no, that amendment should have no jurisdiction over the right to abortion until the exact moment that life begins can be absolutely proven.
No. Statutory language is interpreted based on its intent, at least when the intent is as starkly obvious as it is here.

Regardless, the bill is starkly unconstitutional even if you accept the lunatic premise that it has nothing to do with abortion. It still removes jurisdiction over issues of "life" from the courts. If you'll glance back up this thread, you'll notice that protection for "life" is specifically provided by the 14th amendment, placing cases about life under the constitutional authority of the courts. Framing the bill as being about life, instead of being about abortion, makes it even more directly unconstitutional.
Ash wrote:And the Federal Reserve I have a problem with because of the secrecy surrounding it and the fact that I don't like a small group of people pretty much controlling all of the banks, interest rates, etc. in our country. Without the help of the government it would have never existed, and it should have never been created to begin with. Banks, like any other business, belong in the hands of the population and business owners...not the government and people working for\with them.
In other words, grand statements of principle that don't actually explain what's wrong with it.

Maybe I should phrase it this way: What are the negative consequences of the existence of the federal reserve, and precisely how do they arise?
User avatar
Ashur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2604
Joined: May 14, 2003, 11:09 am
Location: Columbus OH
Contact:

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Ashur »

Hey, I'm "Ash".
- Ash
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Fash »

Newsbusters wrote: I'm measuring my words carefully. Harry Smith has raised the possibility that Barack Obama's life could be in danger.

The Early Show anchor interviewed Ted Kennedy this morning in the wake of his endorsement of Obama yesterday. Smith's initial broaching of the subject of danger to Obama was very cryptic.
HARRY SMITH: When you see that enthusiasm [for Obama] though, and when you see the generational change that seems to be taking place before our eyes, does it make you at all fearful?
Kennedy understandably had no idea what Smith was driving at, and gave an innocuous answer about people's desire for "a new day and a new generation." But Smith's follow-up left no real doubt as to what he had in mind.
SMITH: I just, I think what I was trying to say is, sometimes agents of change end up being targets, as you well know, and that was why I was asking if you were at all fearful of that.
When you tell a man with Ted Kennedy's family history that "you well know" about politicians becoming "targets," the implication is unmistakable.

This time, Kennedy [to his credit I would say] chose to ignore Smith's suggestion, giving another bland answer about Obama being a candidate for change.

What could possibly have possessed Smith to raise this specter?
Journalism is about reporting the news, but they sure do like to make some when there isn't any! I find this a pretty disgusting implication to make.
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
User avatar
Noysyrump
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1201
Joined: January 19, 2004, 2:42 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Noysyrump »

Zaelath wrote:
Noysyrump wrote:
Zaelath wrote:
Fash wrote:I support the states having more control over issues rather than painting the country with a broad brush. I support the constitution and the rights it bestows. I believe the bigger a bureaucracy becomes the less efficient it operates, and that more infrastructure is not always necessary to solve a problem. I believe in privacy and security, at the same time. I believe in Ron Paul.
State law is retarded. Are you American or are you not? Why should it be legal for one American to do something that it's illegal for another to do?

The constitution is a "living document" and most of the crap that people grasp so desperately to protect are amendments anyway and not actually "the constitution" from a preservationist "nothing can be changed OMG" perspective.

I'll go along w/ less government, but I'd get rid of all state government, taxes, and laws.

As for privacy v's security. When you have a real threat to your security you should look at relaxing privacy, maybe (though probably not). In reality you don't have an (external) security problem in the US, at all, not even a little bit.

You just dont get it do you...

The states are in fact what make us FREE. you've heard of that word right? Freedom? I could care less if YOU want it but lord knows I DO!

I live in California. I hate the "liberal" Gov't that we have, but other aspects make this still a nice place to live. Now should those other aspects no longer outweigh what the Gov't does, I then AM FREE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER STATE WICH DOES NOT RUIN MY LIVELYHOOD. Say maybe texas, one of the most conservative. When our federal Gov't takes away states rights they take away YOUR FREEDOM.

Why should some texan have the right to tell californians how to live there lives, he dont live here, he knows nothing about 'our way of life'. And visa-versa.

Its also a 'testing ground' for what works. look at Michegan. They tried maxing out taxes and what happens... mass exudus. economy in the dumps. Now if we let the federal gov't do something so drastic, we then, as individuals, have no recourse. We all must suffer. Or stop beeing an american, and move to canada.
You're funny. Or are you serious? Do you really think people a) have the ability to understand the intricacies of state law (and federal since they can and will overturn them if they see fit), b) the mobility, to just pick and choose what state they live in at will any time the state government changes hands? Or are you just another jackhole that thinks their way is the right way because they live, and will die, within 50 miles of where they were born?

You perhaps also missed the part where I suggested Michigan shouldn't be "free" to "max out taxes" as there shouldn't be any state taxes? Oh right, passion before logic and NIMBY thinking, I forgot. Why read when you can vomit back your conditioned thinking.

Yes I'm well aware a large majority dont care, dont know, and die within 50 miles of their place of birth. However... everyone has the CHOICE and ability to move state to state. You want state run health care? goto Mass. You want gun control? Goto California. You want gambling? Goto Nevada. You want no state gov't? Goto Montana. that is what gives you your freedom, and I'm all for that. If you want a grand federal govt that controls you? Goto mexico or france. Dont make mine that way.
Last edited by Noysyrump on January 29, 2008, 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sick Balls!
User avatar
Aslanna
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 12372
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:57 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Aslanna »

Holy shit I wish I could move out of Indiana. Oh wait.. This is where my job is. And nobody else is hiring. And I recently signed a year lease. Oh darn guess I'm stuck here.
Have You Hugged An Iksar Today?

--
User avatar
Canelek
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9380
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:23 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Canelek
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Canelek »

Ashur wrote:Hey, I'm "Ash".
Bruce Campbell, then you.
en kærlighed småkager
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Zaelath »

Aslanna wrote:Holy shit I wish I could move out of Indiana. Oh wait.. This is where my job is. And nobody else is hiring. And I recently signed a year lease. Oh darn guess I'm stuck here.
Teh freedom fairy will saves j00!!
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
archeiron
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1289
Joined: April 14, 2003, 5:39 am

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by archeiron »

Ash wrote:In order for a fetus to be protected by that, it must be proven to be a living being. I really don't know how that is going to be achieved as it is very hard to say when that moment is. Until that it is no more alive than my sperm or the cells living and dividing in my body. So no, that amendment should have no jurisdiction over the right to abortion until the exact moment that life begins can be absolutely proven.
Fetuses are certainly alive in a biological sense, but are they American citizens with full rights and protections under our Constitution?
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Fash »

Not in my book. You're not entitled to anything until you're born. I support the right of a woman to abort.
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
User avatar
Funkmasterr
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9005
Joined: July 7, 2002, 9:12 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Dandelo19
PSN ID: ToPsHoTTa471

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Funkmasterr »

Hilary eats fetuses for dinner.
User avatar
Noysyrump
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1201
Joined: January 19, 2004, 2:42 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Noysyrump »

Funkmasterr wrote:Hilary eats fetuses for dinner.
The other white meat.
Sick Balls!
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27525
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Winnow »

Maria Shriver endorsed Obama at a rally today. She made a pretty good speech if indeed it was spur of the moment as she says it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62_ajoKkuHA

Not a huge deal but I hope it helps boot Hillary out of the race.
User avatar
Fash
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4147
Joined: July 10, 2002, 2:26 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: sylblaydis
Location: A Secure Location

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Fash »

Maria > Hillary... maybe she'll run in 2012!
Fash

--
Naivety is dangerous.
User avatar
Animale
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 598
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:45 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Raleigh

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Animale »

Shriver for Pres...
It's the only way the Governator will get to live in the White House!

Animale

We'll need to come up with a good nickname if that happens...

First Manonator? The American Elm? Hmm...
Animale Vicioso
64 Gnome Enchanter
<retired>
60 Undead Mage
Hyjal <retired>
User avatar
Marbus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2378
Joined: July 4, 2002, 2:21 am
Contact:

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Marbus »

I hope... and predict that Obama will get the Democratic nomination and I hope he picks Edwards to run with him.

My guess is McCain / Thompson on the Republican side with a McCain / Huckabee as a very small possibility.

If it's Obama vs McCain, Obama will win, no contest. If it's Clinton vs McCain - welcome to 4 more years of Republicans.

Marb
Image
eOmniz
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 143
Joined: January 25, 2003, 1:31 am

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by eOmniz »

My prediction from another forum:

Clinton/Edwards vs. McCain/Huckabee

Clinton wins primaries barely, without superdelegates she'd be behind by a bit. McCain has it in the bag.

McCain wins general with 48% of the vote, Nader takes 3%.


I hope I'm wrong. Gobama?
Current Incarnations:
Flintler, EQ2, Crushbone, HOOAC
Grahmiam, WoW, Firetree, The Crazy 88
Fairweather Pure
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8509
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:06 pm
XBL Gamertag: SillyEskimo

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Fairweather Pure »

I think he just pulled ahead as far as delegates. He seems to have the momentum right now.
User avatar
Midnyte_Ragebringer
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7062
Joined: July 4, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Daellyn
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Midnyte_Ragebringer »

Fairweather Pure wrote:I think he just pulled ahead as far as delegates. He seems to have the momentum right now.

Republican Delegates (1,191 needed to win nomination)

Candidate Delegates
Mike Huckabee 190
John McCain 613
Ron Paul 14
Mitt Romney 269
Total 1,086

Democratic Delegates (2,026 needed to win nomination)

Candidate Delegates
Hillary Clinton 845
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 765
Total 1,636
Bagar-
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 434
Joined: September 20, 2007, 5:09 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Bagar- »

Ron Paul 14

:lol:
Going out to play pool now with my fellow klan members. Have a nice night. - Midnyte
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Sueven »

I feel like, given the facts that Obama was:

1. Trailing in national polls and
2. Trailing in almost every states polls

and that Obama managed to

1. win 13 of 21 states and
2. come within 0.4% of matching Clinton nationally

He's got to come out of the night looking pretty strong. It was pissing me off around 9 PM when all the talking heads were talking about this big Clinton victory, as if Minnesota, Colorado, and the other obvious Obama states in the West didn't count and Massachusetts and New Jersey constitute the entire country.

Obama's campaign will, I think, hinge on the MD/DC/VA primaries next week. If he can sweep those states, he should take a strong lead. I don't know how these states will shake out... I'd think that Obama has a good shot in Maryland, which is heavily urban and has a fairly big African-American population. Virginia is a traditionally red state which is becoming more democratic, which bodes well for Obama given his resonance with newer voters and his disfavor among the older Democratic establishment, but it's also a whiter and more rural state than Maryland, which might bode well for Hillary.

Who knows... just have to watch it play out I guess.
Wulfran
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1454
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Location: Lost...

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Wulfran »

Please forgive the ignorance of a foreign observer (I've watched US elections a bit in the past but not like this one) but isn't Obama running out of time? What I mean by that is he was said to have momentum while Hillary had the "lead" going into yesterday but coming out of it she still has what could be a significant lead (especially given how the Dems don't appear to be all or none like the GOP is in some states). I watched a little bit of CNN last night (just couldn't stick with it) but heard them say that its hard to overcome a lead and that the primaries are structured to force candidates to choose their battles, thus can Obama realistically overcome his "deficit" in the contests remaining? It almost looks like it could be like the sports cliche where the coach says after a loss where his team tries to mount a comeback "if we had 5 more minutes we could have won".
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
Sueven
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3200
Joined: July 22, 2002, 12:36 pm

Re: Obama WILL be the next president

Post by Sueven »

Wulf wrote:Please forgive the ignorance of a foreign observer (I've watched US elections a bit in the past but not like this one) but isn't Obama running out of time? What I mean by that is he was said to have momentum while Hillary had the "lead" going into yesterday but coming out of it she still has what could be a significant lead (especially given how the Dems don't appear to be all or none like the GOP is in some states). I watched a little bit of CNN last night (just couldn't stick with it) but heard them say that its hard to overcome a lead and that the primaries are structured to force candidates to choose their battles, thus can Obama realistically overcome his "deficit" in the contests remaining? It almost looks like it could be like the sports cliche where the coach says after a loss where his team tries to mount a comeback "if we had 5 more minutes we could have won".
Kind of. It's definitely a possible result.

The voting is somewhere around half done. However, the next few states shape up favorably for Obama, if he can maintain the momentum of the last few weeks. It's not out of the question that Obama could sweep Louisiana, Maine, Washington, Nebraska, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia and DC in the next week-- it's not overly likely, but it's possible. If he did that, he'd take the lead and probably seize a lot of momentum. There are no big states that are in prime Hillary territory until Ohio and Pennsylvania. She's still the favorite, but there's a path available.

As for the choosing their battles: This is conventionally true, and was definitely true on Tuesday. The calender slows down for a little while now, which will allow the candidates to spend a bit more time individually in each state. This should benefit lesser known candidates (in this case Obama). Also, Obama's ridiculous fundraising prowess will allow him to run as many ads as he wants.

We'll see what happens
Post Reply