And your comments aren't biased? I stated my opinion, if you don't like it that's too bad. Get over it and think about what you're writing before you hit the send botton.
Your accusation about me being bias shows your ignorance about politics. In short, I am biased against Hillary Clinton. Anyone, including you, who has selected a candidate or is against a candidate is biased. What do you think politics really are?
IMO Hillary Clinton is the most crooked politicians on the either side. She is not an advocate for the American people. She is about power and control. She will tell people what they want to hear just as her husband and most other politicians will and she will deliver next to nothing.
Obviously Obama has been around long enough. He's running a good campaign and I believe his support will continue to be strong. People are crying for change and as I see it, putting Hillary in office is a step back to at least 4 more years of the Clinton regime and the personal, professional and political trapping that were present during his presidency. Putting Obama in would actually be a change for the better. But hey, vote for whom ever you like..
I don't think so. I think what America is asking for change and this is the premise that each candidate is trying to adjust their rhetoric to.
If this is the case, I don't see change coming from Hillary and I don't believe we need any more of the Clintons. She does have some good points i.e. healthcare, social programs, etc... But, if you look at history you will see that her husband ran and was elected on the same platform yet the problem is still there.
Besides, I don't trust her and I don't buy the crocodile tears shed because Obama was ahead of her in the polls. Even if they were real, heart felt emotion, I seriously doubt they were for the American people but shed out of frustration for her own perceived failure.
Given a choice of just those 2, I would choose Obama in a heartbeat. He's not been around long enough to have all those people "waiting in the wings". People, who Hillary will be beholding to when all the campaign dust settles.
Hmmmm, Trying to force any of the first 4 options would certainly increase the chances of losing both a child and a grandchild. I would try to support in anyway I could.
There have been times when I would have liked to go back and change some of the decisions I have made in the past but all those good and bad times & decisions have made me into who I am today so I would just leave it alone. I'm not perfect in anyway (See mouse comment on your earlier thread) but I like life the way it is for the most part and I'm OK with me.
Now, if I could go back and change one thing which I had no control over, I would. It's too complicated, painful and personal for this forum but I would change 1 thing. Unfortunately, I can't so I live with it as best I can and to be fair, even the really bad things that happen which are out of our control, serve to shape us into who were are or will become.
Maybe we could call for a cigarette ban since nicotine is one of the most addictive substances available, is as bad as any other thing and the medical costs are already clearly documented.
Even so, we've had a ban on alcohol before and it worked about as well as today's drug enforcement. And just like with drugs, there were plenty of people manufacturing and selling it.
Why make somethng illegal when the government lacks the capacity, integrity or will (or all three) to enforce.
Let's tax it, sell it and use that money to educate people and create jobs for all those unemployeed drug enforcement professional and those street corner pharmacists currently polluting our streets.
Lets allow people to make their own decisions. Most are quite capable of doing that without big brother telling them what to do or thnik. Those incapable are already buying and using.
I dunno, there's good & bad in every country. Using the example given, the UK may wish to consider to cut relations with the US. We have the death penalty, are accused of torture, are in the midst of a very unpopular war and have had our share of home grown extreemist groups and terrorists.
Like it or not, those countries have their ways of dealing with people, problems, etc.. and they are very important to the western countries. We can complain about our need for their oil but it's a need we created and despite the rhetoric of some, the average guy and gal on the street would have a fit when their lack of fuel hindered their ability to live as they are used to.
I don't agree with their treatment of women, torture, etc.. But, it's their country, their citizens and it's up to them to exact internal change, Besides, the problem wont go away by ignoring it.
Lots of great things there. And more importantly, lots of really good people. Politics, corruption and poverty are issues in some places but most countries of the former Soviet Union are moving in a positive direction.
If being reasonable or using logic had anything to do with religeon, there would be no religeon. To each their own but for me, yes, he's coming back. JMHO
No, Israel isn't very diplomatic when it comes to many things but then again if a country with the capability to destoy were touting that my country should be wiped off the map then I might not be too diplomatic either.
Israel is of course the main issue in the middle east and most of what goes on there is blamed on them. Some of the blame is correct some is not. It seesm to have become a little game with countries like Iran and Syria who are doing nothing more than using countries like Palestine and lebanon as pawns to stir up trouble when they could be do something which would help to resolve the current problems. The true losers over the are those two countries.
You may be right about Israel and the US and the EU equation. I really hope it doesn't come to that
Saw both your posts and I don't think it's too sensetive
Just a couple of comments. North Korea already has nuclear weapons and are hopefully going to continue down the path of getting rid of them. Looks like diplomacy is beginnng to work there. Also, a lot of the saber rattling over the Iran issue has eased since the latest intel report (Iran stopped their nuclear enrichment program). Hopefully we keep going down that path as well.
Africa is certainly a problem and many innocents are killed every day. same holds true for parts of the former Soviet union. I believe there are some positive things happening in both places but the progress will contunue to be slow.
If there is a WWIII, I would bet the same countries will unite as they did in WWII (pretty much anyway) Even if that were the case, I don't believe there will be a winner.
Let's just hope people use their heads for more than a hat rack.
Sparky55 Forum Posts (2,678)
Glad you have a good sense of humor... 
RE: Clinton for President
And your comments aren't biased? I stated my opinion, if you don't like it that's too bad. Get over it and think about what you're writing before you hit the send botton.Your accusation about me being bias shows your ignorance about politics. In short, I am biased against Hillary Clinton. Anyone, including you, who has selected a candidate or is against a candidate is biased. What do you think politics really are?
IMO Hillary Clinton is the most crooked politicians on the either side. She is not an advocate for the American people. She is about power and control. She will tell people what they want to hear just as her husband and most other politicians will and she will deliver next to nothing.
Obviously Obama has been around long enough. He's running a good campaign and I believe his support will continue to be strong. People are crying for change and as I see it, putting Hillary in office is a step back to at least 4 more years of the Clinton regime and the personal, professional and political trapping that were present during his presidency. Putting Obama in would actually be a change for the better. But hey, vote for whom ever you like..