Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

@Cmdr:

Is the sub-prime debacle (the 5% of homes being fore-closed on) something we should bail people out on, or should we let the market correct itself?

can you please explain this little bit more

thanks

@balungaloaf:

the wons gained in 1851 were bought outright and legitly.  just like alaska.

well Alaska was bought
Mexican land conqured

cant see ˝the link˝ here

and Jen, how is McCain liberal when he is against abortion, pro Iraqi war…

he is not Bush, and its good he isnt,

he is smarter :mrgreen:

but he is a right winger, republican, conservative

i simply see him as that way

while Hillary, Obama and Kerry are so alike McCain and Bush arent

thats why McCain will win this elections, i think that even some democrats will vote from him
-i dont know your situation well, but i think he is your man, would you like him or not :mrgreen:

its called the gadsen purchase amon-sul.  it was a legit deal between sovereign governments.  and they cant have it back.  secondly, texas wasn’t part of america after their war, it was its own republic.  it decided to become part of america later.  its not america’s fault for texas.  same goes for california,…it was its own republic and then became part of america.  america never took anything over, they came to america.  but we did beat down the mexicans in the war in the 1840’s however.

@balungaloaf:

its called the gadsen purchase amon-sul.  it was a legit deal between sovereign governments.   and they cant have it back.  secondly, texas wasn’t part of america after their war, it was its own republic.  it decided to become part of america later.  its not america’s fault for texas.  same goes for california,…it was its own republic and then became part of america.  america never took anything over, they came to america.  but we did beat down the mexicans in the war in the 1840’s however.

yes, but San Francisco

Los Angeles

those are Spanish names

and USA is a ˝pro-english˝ country

dont know the history well, but i know you ˝stolen˝ some lands to the Mexicans , and to Canada too, Alaskan-Canadian border treaty, it was against Canada, USA ˝stole˝ some of Canadian land

and i ve heard that in the constitution of USA isnt written that english is the official language, is this true or some noncense?

Actually Gadsen was a VERY small area of land that was bought.  Most of it is extreme southern Arizona.

But the vast majority of the Southwest WAS seized after military conquest against Mexico.

And the US has maintained control over conquered territory in other places too over the years…

• Our bases in Okinawa and Germany
• The US Virgin Islands
• Puerto Rico
• Most of the American Southwest
• Many Pacific Island groups that we only recently restored sovereignty to after controlling them for 50 years.
• Guam
• Some areas of upstate New York and the Canadian border in New England

@ncscswitch:

Actually Gadsen was a VERY small area of land that was bought.  Most of it is extreme southern Arizona.

But the vast majority of the Southwest WAS seized after military conquest against Mexico.

And the US has maintained control over conquered territory in other places too over the years…

• Our bases in Okinawa and Germany
• The US Virgin Islands
• Puerto Rico
• Most of the American Southwest
• Many Pacific Island groups that we only recently restored sovereignty to after controlling them for 50 years.
• Guam
• Some areas of upstate New York and the Canadian border in New England

thanks for this i found it valuable and interesting  8-)
you just forget Guantanamo Bay

i never mentioned those parts of new mexico and arizona…. :-D  but texas and california chose to come here after they were their own country.  and the purchase was small, and yes we did take parts of new mexico and arizona.  but the mexicans were just taking that from the indians anyways.

to the primaries…who’s McCain going to run against.  obama or hillary.

second, what are some good VP nominees for both parties?

Hillary has too many opponents in her own party. There are Democrats that honestly hate Hillary. Obama has no such animosity. He has people who disagree with him, but no outright hatred, mostly because he hasn’t been around long enough to screw things up.

Mitt Romney is going to run against Obama.  Mitt has the most delegates and Obama has the most delegates.  McCain is a fluke, he won’t carry enough delegates to get into the general election.

Anyway, he IS a liberal.  He SAYS he is pro-life, but every vote has been pro-abortion.  He is pro-sunsetting the tax cuts and pro-tax hikes, based on his voting.  He supports the Fairness Doctrine (which is basically a gag order on conservative radio, but no effect on liberal television.)  He is pro-Iraq, but so is Hillary, she always has been.

Take a look at just about any vote in the Senate.  If McCain voted Yes, so did Hillary.  iF Mccain voted no, so did Hillary.  And McCain’s spent more time in Ted Kennedy’s office then any other Republican Office yet.

Sure, he wears the red name tag, he is counted as a republican during the roll calls, but he isn’t.  Not really.  He is only in name.

So far, for Illinois, the forecasts for the Republicans out of 185 possible delegates (that’s almost the most of any state, California has 441 and New York 281) have:

Huckabee: 1 Delegate
McCain: 62 Delegates
Romney: 102 Delegates

Too Close Too Call: 20 Delegates

There are 70 Delegates possible for the Democrat Side (I assume this is calculated somehow, dunno why Republicans have 185 and Democrats only 70, but who cares.)

Hillary: 33 Delegates
Obama: 33 Delegates
Edwards: 4 Delegates

No too close too call races for them.

I am not yet prepared to call a winner on the R side.

On the D side…
If Hillary is even CLOSE in SC, Hillary runs away with Super Tuesday… and gets the Nomination.

Running mate…  Most likely Bill Richardson.

Nope, she made an under the table agreement with Edwards.  He’ll be her Running Mate on the condition that he attacks Obama with her in a tag team event.

And from what I hear, Mitt may only have WON a single state, but so far he’s collected a LARGE margin of delegates to put him in the lead.

I don’t think all of the delegates currently determined are equal to just Florida’s delegates.

And on Super Tuesday, there are over 1000 delegates up for grabs.  A lead of 10 delegates now means nothing once the polls close on Super Tuesday.

Kinda the point when I said that Illinois has the third most influence on who gets the nomination in the country.

States that waited until Feb 5 are getting Bonus delegates, so there’s a HUGE shift that can take place.

However, unbiased polling shows Mitt with a significant lead over McCain with Huckabee as barely a spoiler, mostly a comical figure to break up the monotony of a two person race.

Mitt seems to have 37%
McCain seems to have 31%
Huckabee seems to have 3%

With 29% too close to call.  And with a swing of +/- 4%.

@Amon:

you just forget Guantanamo Bay

it’s rented from Cuba, Castro just don’t cash the checks. the lease ends though at some point, i can’t remember when though.

@balungaloaf:

its called the gadsen purchase amon-sul.  it was a legit deal between sovereign governments.  and they cant have it back.  secondly, texas wasn’t part of america after their war, it was its own republic.  it decided to become part of america later.  its not america’s fault for texas.  same goes for california,…it was its own republic and then became part of america.  america never took anything over, they came to america.  but we did beat down the mexicans in the war in the 1840’s however.

The Gadsden purchase had nothing to do with Texas (Arizona & New Mexico), as Switch said.

Regarding Texas & Mexico:  Texas at the time was Mexican territory, i.e., Mexico.  There had been a boundary dispute between the US & Spain/Mexico concerning the Louisiana purchase that was never quite resolved.  When Mexico gained independence, it gained Texas as well, and granted a lucky few from the US permission to settle there.

The border dispute continued, and the US Texans, which had a considerable population due to increased immigration - some granted, but much of them not - started to throw their weight around concerning Mexican policies such as slavery being banned and US immigrants being disarmed.  Eventually, the US Texans revolted and created their own republic that was neither Mexico or the US.

Really, it was mostly a land grab, and the US Texans played it smart by claiming independence at a volatile time in Mexico’s history, when other states were revolting as well.  But it isn’t very honorable as we make it out to be…

As far as the race, I wouldn’t mind voting for McCain.  I don’t agree with him on many things, but I think he is admirable compared to his comrades, and I absolutely will not have another religious wacko like Huckabee or Romney.  Please please please, republicans, I know you don’t like Clinton, but he wasn’t that bad and was only here for 8 years.  We don’t deserve Huckabee or Romney after 8 years of Bush.

McCain is as bad as Bush, yes they have diffrent policies in diffrent areas like McCain is better on war, but worse on deffence (he is unwilling to do the tough interigation even if to prevent more terrorist activities in US), Bush likes his big government, McCain hates it. Bush likes tax cuts, McCain is against them. both talk the tough game on the boarder and illegal immigration but both support Amnisty for thouse already hear (there is proff from government reports that arn’t realy talked about by the media that posible terrorist are crossing the boarders via Mexico).
i see them both as having the same effect on our nation, i admit i supported McCain in 2000 untell he lost the nomination then i switched to Bush and supported Bush again in 2004, but these last few years have shown how wrong Bush was, and also shows that McCain is also IMHO the wrong man for the job.
as much as i hate to admit it, Jen may be right (from a conservative view point) that a demacrat would be better for the job then McCain as having two left leaning Republicans in a row will hurt the Republican party so bad that it won’t recover for some time and drasticly slow the R parties return to conservative views.

I’ve never been a big McCain Supporter.  But I think some of those statements are misaligned.  How can yo upossibly expect a man that was held in a torturous Prison camp to defend or condone torture.  I for one think he probably has a beter perspective on that issue than most people in this country.

I don’t agree with amnesty, but amnesty is NOT lack of border security.  A big part of the bill that McCain tried to push through last year included craking down on border security.

i know he was a POW, i don’t hold that against him, i respect him for it accually. what i have a problem with is that he is un willing to do tough interigation on terrorist (or atleast those with ties) to prevent more attacks on Amarican citizens. i’m no fan of tourture, but we are on hard times and he is un willing to use all in our power to fight the war on that front with in the guidelines of the law. it is his Achilies heal on the subject. the terorist are not protected under the Ganiva convention or by US law, so why extend that to them unless they extend it back to us… something they have shown time and time again that they have no intrest in doing.

amnisty is a lack of boarder sucurity as history has shown. in the early 1980’s under Regin there was Amnasty given to illigal immigrants and laws put into place to strengthen the boarder. guess what half didn’t go through… boarder strenghtning. this is the exact same thing being pushed now, and he is a part of that push.

@Pervavita:

McCain is as bad as Bush, yes they have diffrent policies in diffrent areas like McCain is better on war, but worse on deffence (he is unwilling to do the tough interigation even if to prevent more terrorist activities in US), Bush likes his big government, McCain hates it. Bush likes tax cuts, McCain is against them. both talk the tough game on the boarder and illegal immigration but both support Amnisty for thouse already hear (there is proff from government reports that arn’t realy talked about by the media that posible terrorist are crossing the boarders via Mexico).
i see them both as having the same effect on our nation, i admit i supported McCain in 2000 untell he lost the nomination then i switched to Bush and supported Bush again in 2004, but these last few years have shown how wrong Bush was, and also shows that McCain is also IMHO the wrong man for the job.
as much as i hate to admit it, Jen may be right (from a conservative view point) that a demacrat would be better for the job then McCain as having two left leaning Republicans in a row will hurt the Republican party so bad that it won’t recover for some time and drasticly slow the R parties return to conservative views.

Well, I think McCain has similar positions as Bush, but for different (and wiser) reasons.

The torture thing…it has been shown time and time again that you can not rely on claims derived from torture.  Every once in a while you may get a solid lead, but way more often than not it is bogus info.  Hey may have personal vendetta against this anyway, but either way his stance is the one that is most correct.
I don’t agree with his pro-aggression stance, but I think he might use the military more wisely and when necessary. 
Like DF says with Amnesty, it’s not just amnesty they are going for.  It’s completely unwise to try and ship out all illegals.  It would cost way too much, would impact our economy quite a bit, and the benefit is really not much.  You have to stop the bleeding first, and accept what has happened already can’t be reversed in any realistic sense.  I want to say McCain takes this position being from a border state and seeing it up close, but I think Bush may have the backing of Big Business or something for his standing on it.  Maybe not.