It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Submits For 2008 Presidential Bid

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
By putting forth Obama, is this a way of securing Hillary's move to the ticket? I can see more people voting for her than this guy.


Unlikely to many members of Hillary's core supporter base don't like her as a candidate.
I would welcome the input of Americans but Hillary seems to fail on the things necessary to make a good candidate.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by xpert11]




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Oh goody, just what we need....another young and inexperienced president.


Yeah!!, just like that one guy.....what was his name. John Kennedy or something. Boy, did that inexperienced president really screw up the 'cuban missle crisis' or what?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
Yeah!!, just like that one guy.....what was his name. John Kennedy or something. Boy, did that inexperienced president really screw up the 'cuban missle crisis' or what?


Oh yeah, that guy that served 4 years in the Navy during WWII, that guy that served 7 years in the House of Representatives, that guy that represented Massachusetts in the US senate for 9 years (during his term he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize)....is that the guy you are talking about?



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Please accept my apologies. That post was made when I had made some other hasty posts. I'm not sure why I posted that, because I did know about his senate position. Sorry again, I was on attack mode and made a slew of poor judgemetn posts.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This just shows how weak the Democrat party is even after 8 years of a Republican presidency, even one as controversial as Bush's.
...
It's way to early to tell, but that's my gut feeling at this time.

Weak as opposed to what? The Republican party? Maybe you fail to remember all the corruption and gay sex scandals that conservative leadership has experianced in recent history. Couple that with the fact that George W. Bush will be remembered as one of the worst presidents among the ranks of Nixon and Harding I don't think democrats are the ones in a weak position.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, it will be interesting to see if his past drug usage has any effect on his run.

The America public has been known to accept a president who smoked pot but didn't inhale. Now will they accept a candidate who has snorted coke but didn't like the smell?

At the very least he is honest about his past. George Bush on the other hand not only used coc aine but also lied about it. Of course his "base" forgives him and votes for him anyways because he is "saved." It still amazes me that an inarticulate, irresponsible, spoiled elitist coward who used his father's political connections to dodge the Vietnam draft (like many of his neoconservative buddies who are currently in power) can get elected as President of the United States.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, it didn't take long for this to become another Bush-bashing thread, did it?

Your earlier comment was meant to bait this response. The first thing you did was bring up coc aine use. A George Bush comparison is only fair.

As far as Obama's potential bid for the presidency:

I would vote for him. I'd much rather vote for Obama than Hillary. Hillary to me is an insincere politician who is only concerned about her own personal ambition. The very fact that she ran for congress in a state which she is not a native resident of makes me question her motives. As much as I hate the chip-on-your-shoulder New York/Texas pride (you don't deserve a #ing medal just because you're from New York) Hillary is not a New Yorker. She will never be a New Yorker. And the fact that she pretended to be one just to get elected into the U.S. Senate speaks volumes about her character. The only reason I would vote for Hillary is if she was running against Jeb Bush or an equally machiavellian political figure.


Originally posted by grimreaper797
I hope its Ron Paul Vs. Obama. I would love to see Ron Paul with a great shot at winning.

Ron Paul is one of the few Republican candidates who I would vote for. If Ron Paul was the Republican candidate for president I would vote for him over Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and pretty much any candidate the Democrats end up nominating. He is not a typical Republican and he is not afraid of speaking the truth. For example:


The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

From: The End of Dollar Hegemony

I hope and pray that he is nominated and wins the presidency. But I doubt Ron Paul will win the nomination because the powers that be stand to loose far too much money. There was another president in the past who made the mistake of opposing the Federal Reserve. Guess who it was? John F Kennedy.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think I'm beginning to understand why Democrats don't like guns. They can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot.


I predict McCain/Lieberman will head the GOP ticket and they are more apt to actually increase the percentage of citizens with their feet shot off.

Obama will look pretty good, compared to the surge brothers...







[edit on 19-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Democrats don't necessiarly dislike guns... we just think that there is nothing wrong and much right with stronger gun control laws....which actually law and order types should be in favor of.

I am a staunch democrat and while I do not like guns and do not own one I am very conflicted about gun control.

screw the criminals... if guns are outlawed only the government will have guns and that bothers me far more than any criminal.

That being said there is nothing wrong with background checks, limits on the number of guns you can buy in a week or a waiting period.

Anybody who doesn't want their background checked, wants to buy lots weapons at one time and doesn't want to wait a few days is up to something.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Hey now Bush was a coke head himself not to mention a drunk (and possibly still is) slacker, user of daddy's influence to get him out of jams (like Vietnam) and all round ner-do-well who failed at everything he did until he entered politics. AND he's a total failure as president too.

Personally I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a slam dunk if Clinton weren't such a polarizing figure (which is why I don't back her) but an Obama/Edwards or Obama/Clarke (or vice a versa) would be a formidable ticket. While they lack experince Bush minor and Reagan have proven you don't have to have any brains or substance to be president. A terrible precedent if you ask me... might as well elect Zippy the Pinhead or Zaphod.


Fact: In researching Dubya's draft lottery number, ( drawn by birthday) he would have never been drafted into military service.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I would happily back Al Gore for president again. The man is intelligent, articulate, knows how to pronounce nuclear and unlike 98% of the people running he doesn't have to run against his own votes over the past 6 years... Hillary? To polarizing. Barack Obama and John Edwards...a lot of potential, wait a few years. Same with Wesley Clarke... but Gore has the experince to do the job. Gore/Clarke would be a formidable team...

...plus it has an added factor...it would annoy the hell out of the right wing.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by grover
Hey now Bush was a coke head himself not to mention a drunk (and possibly still is) slacker, user of daddy's influence to get him out of jams (like Vietnam) and all round ner-do-well who failed at everything he did until he entered politics. AND he's a total failure as president too.

Personally I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a slam dunk if Clinton weren't such a polarizing figure (which is why I don't back her) but an Obama/Edwards or Obama/Clarke (or vice a versa) would be a formidable ticket. While they lack experince Bush minor and Reagan have proven you don't have to have any brains or substance to be president. A terrible precedent if you ask me... might as well elect Zippy the Pinhead or Zaphod.


Fact: In researching Dubya's draft lottery number, ( drawn by birthday) he would have never been drafted into military service.


That is moot... you don't know that ahead of time. i know I didn't. I was lucky I was in one of the very last drafts and would not have gone to Vietnam but i still chose to go in and enlisted in the Coast Guard.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join