Which Presidential Candidate Best For Pool
- Thread starter Jude Rosenstock
- Start date
Aha, finally a subject I know even less about than pool! The presidencyJohnnyt said:
has become too daunting a task for any one person.(male, female, or
transvestite) I agree with Johnnyt with regards to Bush/Cheney. They
have dug a very deep hole, and I'm a Republican!
No more one party rule.This country needs a Tribunal, 1 Democrat,
1 Republican, and 1 Independant, then just let them slug it out to see
who has the best plan for bringing us back to a respectable world power!!!
Last edited:
thebigdog said:
He is a man of conviction who speaks straight, not all political double speak. He appears to be a true leader, which we are sorely lacking at this time.
I know I did not address his stand on any specific issues, but to me leadership qualities are first and foremost what our country needs. GWB was and is a joke for a leader. A wimp with no brains has been our President for nearly eight long years. And look at the damage he and his henchmen have done.
Enough said. This thread belongs on NPR but I found it here, so I replied.
Leadership quality is important, but as you will see in history, people like Hitler and Mussilini were very charasmatic. I am not comparing Obama to them by any means, but just making the point that I do not see that as a good reason to choose a candidate. Being a good speaker only goes so far. It is tough to choose someone that has such little political experience and history, and such a questionable background. Just my 2 cents. I would rather vote based on their stands on specific topics and overall views.
mantis99 said:
For that matter, I also respect his stand on the War in Iraq, Health Care, Big Oil, the Pharmaceutical Companies, Lobbyists and other important issues of our time. He actually has more experience in Congress than Hillary.
JFK was only 43 when elected President. He was a great man and a great leader, who had balls. It speaks volumes to me that JFK's daughter and brother are behind Obama. Barack has cohonnes too. He would be a good leader at this trying time in our nation's history.
By the way, I voted for him in the Primary today.
pool will survive
No, but I can assure you that if a Democrat gets elected, they will try to ban my second amendment rights,
and that's a hell of lot more critical to this nation, in protecting that right, than anything pool related. And I love pool!
mantis99 said:
No, but I can assure you that if a Democrat gets elected, they will try to ban my second amendment rights,
and that's a hell of lot more critical to this nation, in protecting that right, than anything pool related. And I love pool!
jay helfert said:
lol, a wimp? are you kidding me Jay? I guess it's going to take another attack for all of the Democrats and left wingers to realize that we are doing the right thing. And yes, I'm gonna put a big "I told you so" right on the front page of every local paper even if it costs $100,000. People love to criticize a government that is providing protection to us.
14oneman said:No, but I can assure you that if a Democrat gets elected, they will try to ban my second amendment rights,
The Second Amendment addresses number one the importance of having a well prepared militia (i.e. Army) to protect our country. Guess what, the current Republican President has done away with that. Our Army is all overseas, and what's left behind couldn't defend us against Cuba if they wanted to invade our shores. That's a joke, but not far from the truth.
Number two it addresses our right to bear arms. I think by now, everyone (including all the bad guys) are well armed in this country. The best armed populace in the world by far. No one will get their legally obtained weapons taken away, it just may get harder to buy assault rifles/pistols and the like. As it should be.
jay helfert said:
First of all, the Second Amendment address's the INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms. An amendment in the constitution AMENDS something. If you bother to read the constitution you'll realize what it amends.
If you truly believe what you have said, then you are very un-informed on the topic, and very naive.
corvette1340 said:
Sorry buddy, we have more enemies today than ever before. He got Saddam (for daddy), job over. He didn't get Osama when he could have and that was (and is) the big cheese. I have big questions about the "protection" our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are providing for us, or anyone for that matter.
Safer here, doubtful. We have many more enemies to worry about now than ever before. Safer abroad, not by a long shot. Americans must be careful where they travel today, due to the hatred he has engendered worldwide.
Maybe that's why his popularity rating is in the toilet. The most disliked President of the last 100 years. Good riddance is what I have to say. And none to soon. Should have happened four years ago.
14oneman said:
I believe those were the exact words I used. Our right to "bear arms". I'm not sure what you are correcting me about. I guess I'm just naive.
And by the way, the part about keeping a well prepared militia comes first in the Second Amendment, and it refers to individuals being part of a well prepared Armed Force. A militia is an organized group (you know, like an Army, Marine Corps, National Guard etc.) not just a bunch of people with guns in their home.
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Have we had a domestic attack since 911? No
We got Saddam and now are trying to secure the entire area that is full of radical crazy men just like Saddamn that will stop at nothing to harm America. So, all the liberals say we should bring the troops home and not concentrate on the "war on terror" as much. Its easy to say he's doing the wrong thing, but if he brings the troops home and then we fall under attack then its "wow, I guess he was right, maybe we wouldn't have these thousands of dead people if he stayed the course". It's a classic catch 22 that Democrats are too dumb to see. As for the economy and health care, I love the fact that since I like money I am allowed to make as much as I can and don't have to give it to all the slackers. I think that if you can't afford health care then you should get a goddamn job that provides it or do without. When my wife was having her baby, there were 5 families of Mexicans that were in the hospital at the same time and they were filling out medicade papers and they got the same care in the hospital that we did, with one catch, they didn't have to pay for it!! Now how fair is that BS? I spend $400/month and have good health care, and they simply get the same treatment without paying. I want the candidate that gets rid of free rides for the people that can't cut it.
jay helfert said:
Read the constitution, everything will become clearer. The militia IS what is being amended, and the "bunch of people with guns in their home" is EXACTLY what the amendment is trying to protect.
If you read the part of the constitution that address's militia and guns, you will see why there is a second amendment, and why it absolutly address's the individuals right to keep and bear arms in order to regulate the militia. In other words, keep the militia in check.