www.ditl.org

Bush no, Obama (fingers crossed) yes.

God, I hope so. Obama v Giuliani is the best possible race. Two moderates who have forward-thinking policies, instead of '50s era evangelical fascism (McCain) vs super-liberal, force-my-policies-down-your-throat communism (Clinton).

Like you said. Fingers crossed...

Hillary is the worst possible option for the Dems (not because I hate her or because her policies suck) but because it will suck every right-wing retard out of the woodwork to vote against her. For some reason the name Clinton sends Republitards into a frenzy.

Seriously, friend, check out her policies. *shudder*

I have, and I dislike most of them as much as I dislike a lot of "Bushism" (God wanted me to be president. Seriously, WTF?).

Obama is the most reasonable candidate. I align myself toward whichever party presents the best candidate. A choice between crap and crap still leaves you with a big, steaming pile of poo at the end.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Seriously, friend, check out her policies. *shudder*

I have, and I dislike most of them as much as I dislike a lot of "Bushism" (God wanted me to be president. Seriously, WTF?).

Obama is the most reasonable candidate. I align myself toward whichever party presents the best candidate. A choice between crap and crap still leaves you with a big, steaming pile of poo at the end.

The only policy so far that I've seen that I strongly disagree with is her stance on video games. That's just whoring out to the soccer moms. But I haven't kept abreast of everything in the US election news, frankly there's so much BS piling up that you need a steam shovel to keep above it. And from my perspective as a Canadian and world citizen, Hillary can't be worse than any Republican that gets voted in. Obama would be better but I'll take anyone who isn't another Republitard.

Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

There's a great nugget from her website. I'm now REQUIRED to pay for insurance I don't need? I have literally NO extra money to spend on something like this. I have enough trouble paying $830 a month for rent in a crappy apartment, $150+ electric bills, plus $60 for phone, and whatever I have left for food and gas. "Affordable"? I somehow doubt someone who grew up in a wealthy household, went to college, and now lives better than 95% of Americans can grasp "affordable". Is it $5? If not, I can't afford it.

There's plenty more where that came from.

I happen to be a lifelong Dem, and my problem with Hillary is the fact that she is as unflexible in her positions as the worst (in my opinion) of the right-wingers. The hallmark of a truly great leader is the ability to bend with the wind, and yet maintain the overall structure, or theme if you will, of the platform.

Agreed. Adaptability is the mark of a true statesman (or stateswoman, I guess). Obama is definately a real statesman. If he can get the nomination, he certainly has my vote.

Oh, I almost forgot. To get back on topic for a moment (gasp!), why aren't we Americans investing more capital into viable clean energy sources like geothermal? Yellowstone national park is actually a massive volcano, with tons of energy being radiated every day. Set up a complex of geothermal turbines all over it, and we could harness thousands of megawatts of power.

Instead, we choose to spend $400 billion a year on welfare so that lazy dirtbags can sit around watching cable, and eating better than I do. That's more than most countries' GNP, for creation's sake.

If I may jump in.

The only policy so far that I've seen that I strongly disagree with is her stance on video games.

What is her stance on them?

i assume age ratings, censorship and ''violence is wrong'' etc..........

Rochey wrote:If I may jump in.

The only policy so far that I've seen that I strongly disagree with is her stance on video games.

What is her stance on them?

Basically IIRC she whored out to the soccer mom demographic and decided to state that violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto should be heavily restricted. I don't care for the game but I don't see how heavier regulation is going to prevent parents from buying little Johnny GTA. Education as always is the key.

Uh, how can they be more heavily restricted than they already are? Over here they're rated '18', meaning only people over the age of 18 can buy them, I assume there is a similar system over there?

Rochey wrote:Uh, how can they be more heavily restricted than they already are? Over here they're rated '18', meaning only people over the age of 18 can buy them, I assume there is a similar system over there?

Something about being behind the counter and not visible to the public. And yes they are rated but apparently that's not good enough. When I bought The Godfather:The Game, they actually carded me, even though I look thirty.

Jeez, and I thought laws over here were strict.

Having worked in media software retail, I can say this - people will by their kids anything, and will only have an issue with what their kids are watching/doing after the fact.. I can't even describe the number of times somebody tried to returna CD to me that their kid bought because fo the language on it. My response was invariably, "Where were you when your kid bought that CD?"

Games were different, because of the age ratings, but I had experienced people completing a transaction top buy"Grand Theft Auto" or somesuch for their 10-year-old, and THEN asking me, "Is this appropriate?" My response to that was generally, "Absolutely not. Have a nice day!"