Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Who Should Be The Next President


Posted by: connor1985 11-Sep-2007, 10:03 AM
i think the title is explaining enough i just want to see what everyone thinks if we might see the first woman pres or a middle eastern decented or is there someone else. please keep this somewhat clean but lets see what everyone thinks.

Posted by: stoirmeil 11-Sep-2007, 10:24 AM
I think right now I'd get behind maisky, if he'd run. We know we'd have a fantastic First Dog, for one thing. Emmet and John Clements somewhere in the cabinet would be good too, or maybe riding herd on the Pentagon.

Posted by: John Clements 11-Sep-2007, 12:11 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 11-Sep-2007, 11:24 AM)
I think right now I'd get behind maisky, if he'd run.  We know we'd have a fantastic First Dog, for one thing.  Emmet and John Clements somewhere in the cabinet would be good too, or maybe riding herd on the Pentagon.

Thanks stoirmeil, I didn’t think that anyone could get a laugh out of me today.

Oh by the way, your handle, is it lifted from a breakfast cereal? I can see it now…

(Try Stoirmeil for breakfast, it's fiber for your imagination)

Posted by: maisky 11-Sep-2007, 01:01 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 11-Sep-2007, 10:24 AM)
I think right now I'd get behind maisky, if he'd run.  We know we'd have a fantastic First Dog, for one thing.  Emmet and John Clements somewhere in the cabinet would be good too, or maybe riding herd on the Pentagon.

John Clement would be the first "Secretary of Parties" in US History. Emmet will get the Pentagon. I hope he gets a good price for the property after he evicts the current tenants. biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 11-Sep-2007, 03:27 PM
And working behind the scenes, the Karl Rove of the administration, would be me tongue.gif biggrin.gif .

Posted by: haynes9 11-Sep-2007, 03:36 PM
As much as I disagree with you guys politically, I'd vote for you just to watch the show!! biggrin.gif

Seriously, I have no idea how I'll vote. I like Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul, but I don't know that either of them has a legitimate chance since all the media attention goes to the "big boys." (and big girl!).

Posted by: Gwynhwyvar 11-Sep-2007, 07:04 PM
Mark - I tend to agree with you. As in the last election, hubby and I decided to not "vote for the lesser of two evils" so to speak. Remember, the "lesser" is still evil. We voted Constitution Party. Anyway, we are putting our support behind Ron Paul. At least we can sleep at night instead of having regrets. Also, who knows how it will all turn out - only God truly knows.

Jennie

Posted by: maisky 12-Sep-2007, 06:56 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 11-Sep-2007, 03:27 PM)
And working behind the scenes, the Karl Rove of the administration, would be me tongue.gif biggrin.gif .

It will be a pleasure to have Mike Rove as a Close advisor.

Posted by: connor1985 12-Sep-2007, 08:17 AM
i find this interesting no one is going for either of the big parties! now the question is do we really think the other parties really have enough of a shot to win the wihte house? while i tihnk they can get a good chunk in the end i afraid it will only take away form other people and let some other jack off in... however i have not been following this as closely as i should be but i will start to pick up as the year comes to an end and they really start to pick up on the BS. although if it goes like last time it wont matter who we vote for since it was bought (by the devil) anyway and we just vote for nothing. if anyone has ever listened to lewis black i gonna steal a line from him. lets elect a dead president! no for real a dead person like former president nixon. see people hate us and bush such a wuss that they willing to fight against us where when nixon was in office he scared everyone including us. lol just a thought gives ya something else to think about lol. lets keep this topic live and see what more people think.

Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Sep-2007, 10:02 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 12-Sep-2007, 07:56 AM)
It will be a pleasure to have Mike Rove as a Close advisor.

Yup. Just get that George Foreman grill of Mike's into the oval office and do some grilling drills for your chosen Attorney General. He'll really be able to take the heat.

Posted by: MDF3530 12-Sep-2007, 06:43 PM
I could teach everyone how to to do some mean lowfat grillin' biggrin.gif !

Posted by: ballydun 13-Sep-2007, 11:52 AM
I honestly haven't heard any candidate that I am ready to vote for...although there are several I'd vote against if given a chance.

I think the CR ticket would be the best for the country. wink.gif Well, it would be a lot of fun anyway! biggrin.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 13-Sep-2007, 04:20 PM
QUOTE (ballydun @ 13-Sep-2007, 12:52 PM)
I honestly haven't heard any candidate that I am ready to vote for...although there are several I'd vote against if given a chance.

I'm voting against Hillary in the primary. She's always grated on me. If she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her but I'll do it holding my nose.

Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Sep-2007, 08:22 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 13-Sep-2007, 05:20 PM)
I'm voting against Hillary in the primary. She's always grated on me. If she gets the nomination, I'll vote for her but I'll do it holding my nose.

I know what you mean. She is getting more forced in her vocal delivery every time you turn on the radio. I feel like sending her campaign a letter to tell her handlers to get her some speech lessons so she can orate without sounding lke a high-pressure hose. I don't think I can stand it for another whole year. sad.gif

Posted by: maisky 14-Sep-2007, 11:51 AM
I look forward to the Clinton/Obama pair as the Democratic team to lead the next administration. They are two of the smartest people in politics. It will be a refreshing change from Dumb and Dumberer.

Posted by: John Clements 14-Sep-2007, 12:24 PM
What about Edwards and Obama, since everyone keeps saying that Kucinich hasn’t got a chance. I’d bet that Kucinich would win hands down, (and I don’t mean sliding our hands along the bottom of public toilet partitions) if everyone would stop analyzing this (you know what), and vote for the best man.

Sorry guys and gals, but Clinton is just more of the same.

IMOEACHMENT IS… VITO PROOF!

JC

Posted by: haynes9 14-Sep-2007, 12:52 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 14-Sep-2007, 12:24 PM)
What about Edwards and Obama, since everyone keeps saying that Kucinich hasn’t got a chance. (I’d bet that Kucinich would win hands down, (and I don’t mean sliding our hands along the bottom of public toilet partitions) if everyone would stop analyzing this (you know what), and vote for the best man.

Sorry guys and gals, but Clinton is just more of the same.

IMOEACHMENT IS… VITO PROOF!

JC

John, we agree on Hillary Clinton? Man, that's scary! Next thing you know you'll be sitting in my church, tithing, and singing in the choir . . . NAAAHHH! tongue.gif

Have a great day, John. Appreciate your candor and the way you force me to think!

Posted by: maisky 15-Sep-2007, 05:56 AM
I find it vastly amusing that the Republicants are MIA here with their "wonderful" candidates. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: haynes9 15-Sep-2007, 11:18 AM
I know you were making a general statement, Maisky old pal, but I already stated my preference for Duncan Hunter and/or Ron Paul. Definitely don't think any of the front runners are all that wonderful.

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Sep-2007, 11:36 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 14-Sep-2007, 12:51 PM)
I look forward to the Clinton/Obama pair as the Democratic team to lead the next administration. They are two of the smartest people in politics. It will be a refreshing change from Dumb and Dumberer.

In theory there's a lot of brains and charisma there, as a pair, but I don't think either one of them fancies the notion of being the other one's running mate for VP. Obama has said so flat out. It's a pity, but there's gonna be no time to play with ego adjustment -- whoever inherits this unholy mess has to be ready to work ten minutes after the inauguration speech, with a committed and fully willing partner.

Posted by: MDF3530 16-Sep-2007, 02:33 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 14-Sep-2007, 12:51 PM)
I look forward to the Clinton/Obama pair as the Democratic team to lead the next administration. They are two of the smartest people in politics. It will be a refreshing change from Dumb and Dumberer.

If that happens, the governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is gonna hit the ceiling with his helmet hair. The way he's been acting, you'd think he wants to be Hillary's running mate.

Posted by: SCShamrock 16-Sep-2007, 11:51 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 15-Sep-2007, 06:56 AM)
I find it vastly amusing that the Republicants are MIA here with their "wonderful" candidates. rolleyes.gif

Maisky, this is a time in our country where many of us should force ourselves to be utterly honest. The reason Republicans are being so silent could well be the reason I have been so silent. There is NOTHING left of the Republican party that remotely resembles what once was a common ideology. The same is true for Democrats. I know people are used to reading my statements in defense of the Republicans and in condemnation on the Democrats. However, I feel there is not a single person aiming for the White House that is worthy of the spilled blood of Americans who have fought and died for their beloved country. And I think those who fully support any of the "contestants" are settling. Sure, there are people who will claim that a candidate is just what the country needs. But really, if someone is brutally honest, can they truly claim that any of these politicians are in harmony with what they think America is supposed to be about? I doubt it seriously.

More honesty. I will now give a sincere apology to those here who, in the past, I have lambasted for their criticism of Bush. Like so many who supported Clinton for two terms and have lived to regret it, I have been supportive of Bush...to my chagrin. In fact, I think the past 16 years have devastated our nation in ways from which she may never recover. Bush has set the stage in which generations of the world's nations will hate us immensely. From foreign policy, to economic damage, to mass invasion of emboldened illegal immigrants, etc., etc., we are weakened beyond measure. But most egregious is the way in which our constitution has been bastardized. When that document has been diluted, "interpreted", and pawned to death, what will we have left?

So who should be the next president? In short...I have no idea. Anyone who reads this would be an improvement over the current administration.

Posted by: John Clements 21-Sep-2007, 07:04 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 17-Sep-2007, 12:51 AM)
Maisky, this is a time in our country where many of us should force ourselves to be utterly honest. The reason Republicans are being so silent could well be the reason I have been so silent. There is NOTHING left of the Republican party that remotely resembles what once was a common ideology. The same is true for Democrats. I know people are used to reading my statements in defense of the Republicans and in condemnation on the Democrats. However, I feel there is not a single person aiming for the White House that is worthy of the spilled blood of Americans who have fought and died for their beloved country. And I think those who fully support any of the "contestants" are settling. Sure, there are people who will claim that a candidate is just what the country needs. But really, if someone is brutally honest, can they truly claim that any of these politicians are in harmony with what they think America is supposed to be about? I doubt it seriously.

More honesty. I will now give a sincere apology to those here who, in the past, I have lambasted for their criticism of Bush. Like so many who supported Clinton for two terms and have lived to regret it, I have been supportive of Bush...to my chagrin. In fact, I think the past 16 years have devastated our nation in ways from which she may never recover. Bush has set the stage in which generations of the world's nations will hate us immensely. From foreign policy, to economic damage, to mass invasion of emboldened illegal immigrants, etc., etc., we are weakened beyond measure. But most egregious is the way in which our constitution has been bastardized. When that document has been diluted, "interpreted", and pawned to death, what will we have left?

So who should be the next president? In short...I have no idea. Anyone who reads this would be an improvement over the current administration.

Well said SCShamrock.
Well, we could always give Ralph Nader another shot. Like I’ve said before, in my mind he’s as close to Abe Lincoln, as we’ll ever see. (That is, even if good old Abe was a republican)

Posted by: maisky 23-Sep-2007, 02:24 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 16-Sep-2007, 11:51 PM)
Maisky, this is a time in our country where many of us should force ourselves to be utterly honest. The reason Republicans are being so silent could well be the reason I have been so silent. There is NOTHING left of the Republican party that remotely resembles what once was a common ideology. The same is true for Democrats. I know people are used to reading my statements in defense of the Republicans and in condemnation on the Democrats. However, I feel there is not a single person aiming for the White House that is worthy of the spilled blood of Americans who have fought and died for their beloved country. And I think those who fully support any of the "contestants" are settling. Sure, there are people who will claim that a candidate is just what the country needs. But really, if someone is brutally honest, can they truly claim that any of these politicians are in harmony with what they think America is supposed to be about? I doubt it seriously.

More honesty. I will now give a sincere apology to those here who, in the past, I have lambasted for their criticism of Bush. Like so many who supported Clinton for two terms and have lived to regret it, I have been supportive of Bush...to my chagrin. In fact, I think the past 16 years have devastated our nation in ways from which she may never recover. Bush has set the stage in which generations of the world's nations will hate us immensely. From foreign policy, to economic damage, to mass invasion of emboldened illegal immigrants, etc., etc., we are weakened beyond measure. But most egregious is the way in which our constitution has been bastardized. When that document has been diluted, "interpreted", and pawned to death, what will we have left?

So who should be the next president? In short...I have no idea. Anyone who reads this would be an improvement over the current administration.

I'm finally out of intensive care after reading this post. rolleyes.gif

I have to congratulate SCShamrock for his maturity and bravery in posting this. Thanks, my friend. Now we can move on to disagreeing on the candidates. biggrin.gif

Posted by: haynes9 23-Sep-2007, 05:16 PM
Couldn't agree more with SCShamrock. The Republican candidates I like have little or no shot. I have also looked at the Constitution Party, but they still have yet to show that they can field candidates with a reasonable chance of winning.

My dad was a life long Democrat who taught me to vote for the man, not the party. I have tried to uphold that teaching. All I can say right ow is that if this is the best field of candidates that the major parties can offer, we are truly in sad shape.

Who knows? Maybe Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul can make a game of it.

Posted by: gwenlee 23-Sep-2007, 07:49 PM
So far there isn't anyone that has put his/her hat in that I would vote for. No way would I vote for Hilliary.

As far as the mess this country is in it is the fault of everyone that was voted in, regardless of their party. Personally I think we need to fire everyone and start all over. I think our leaders have forgotten the people that they were elected to represent. I like to think there is hope.

And while we are at it can we get rid of the AFLCIO?

Oh by the way, I consider myself a conservative. I have voted both democrat and Republican.

Posted by: John Clements 24-Sep-2007, 07:21 AM
Given that I believe that fundamental change is what America needs most of all. The following list of democratic candidates would be my choice for president, in the order as I have listed them below.

Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Christopher Dodd
Bill Richardson
John Edwards
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton

And if I could ask the first two questions at the up and coming democratic debate, I would ask them all. What they intended to do about NAFTA, the WTA, and the war in Iraq. (also in that order)

As fare as the Republican candidates are concerned, I don’t think they’re worth thinking about, especially Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by: Robert Phoenix 09-Oct-2007, 06:34 PM
Saw a nice graph on MSN that lists each of the candidates on what they believe on what issue. Might come in handy. I don't know how bias it is or how accurate the info is contains is. I would have like to see more issues up there but it gives an idea were eaach of the candidates stand. Some of the views are backed up with video footage, etc.
Here is the link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732/

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 10-Oct-2007, 12:38 AM
There is one man who I believe would make a great president, but he will never run--Powell. Kucinich has some appeal, but I don't know enough about him. Hillary is tied to the "Clinton machine". By the time a new president is sworn in, the Bush and/or Clinton organizations will have been in power for 20 years; do you really want four more? I certainly don't. I think an Obama-Edwards ticket (no preference for who's top of the ticket) would easily win the election. Both of them seem to have new ideas and both seem to be trustworthy. Haven't made up my mind yet, but Edwards and Obama are my front runners right now.

SCShamrock hit the nail on the head in many ways. Many of us have become completely disillusioned with one party or the other or ALL politics, but we must not drop out of the system. Vote for who you believe in. Even a vote for a losing candidate will help give credibility to his or her position on the issues. Perhaps enough credibility to catch the winner's attention.


Posted by: haynes9 10-Oct-2007, 07:51 AM
QUOTE (TheCarolinaScotsman @ 10-Oct-2007, 12:38 AM)
SCShamrock hit the nail on the head in many ways. Many of us have become completely disillusioned with one party or the other or ALL politics, but we must not drop out of the system. Vote for who you believe in. Even a vote for a losing candidate will help give credibility to his or her position on the issues. Perhaps enough credibility to catch the winner's attention.

Couldn't agree more, Scotsman. Some of us who have voted Republican for a long time are being "bullied" by the powers that be with the old line "You may not like our guy, but you HAVE to vote for him/her! If you don't, the bad guys will get in office!" Hang that! I'm going to vote for the person/persons with which I philosophically and politically agree. I don't waste my vote when I vote my conscience and keep my core beliefs. If the "powers that be" want my vote, start giving me some credible candidates and quit telling me who YOU think is credible. I will decide that for myself, thank you very much! I still think Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are the ones I like the best since they have a history of upholding that little document that everyone talks about but no one reads . . what is it? . . Oh, yeah, the Constitution!

OK, I'm done with my rant . . . for now. Think I'll go listen to some preaching. Hey John, want to join me wink.gif !

Have a great day, All!

Posted by: John Clements 10-Oct-2007, 09:26 AM
QUOTE (haynes9 @ 10-Oct-2007, 08:51 AM)
Couldn't agree more, Scotsman. Some of us who have voted Republican for a long time are being "bullied" by the powers that be with the old line "You may not like our guy, but you HAVE to vote for him/her! If you don't, the bad guys will get in office!" Hang that! I'm going to vote for the person/persons with which I philosophically and politically agree. I don't waste my vote when I vote my conscience and keep my core beliefs. If the "powers that be" want my vote, start giving me some credible candidates and quit telling me who YOU think is credible. I will decide that for myself, thank you very much! I still think Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are the ones I like the best since they have a history of upholding that little document that everyone talks about but no one reads . . what is it? . . Oh, yeah, the Constitution!

OK, I'm done with my rant . . . for now. Think I'll go listen to some preaching. Hey John, want to join me wink.gif !

Have a great day, All!

Hi haynes9, I thought I just read the preaching, you mean I have to hear it too?

Anyway, I certainly agree with your post, and if Ron Paul changed some of his views, like “the right to choose” for example. I could find him appealing. But alas, I don’t think he will. So I’m still leaning towards Dennis Kucinich, because he’s more in favor of fundamental change. (Besides, have you seen Kucinich’s wife?) You know I heard someone say the other day: I don’t care if Dennis Kucinich gets in or not, as long as his wife becomes…”the first lady“.

You have a good day too, my friend,
JC

Posted by: John Clements 15-Oct-2007, 12:59 PM
Choosing a president is a process of elimination, don’t you think?

Posted by: maisky 16-Oct-2007, 03:17 AM
It looks more and more like Hillary will be moving back into her house after the next presidential election. With the Republicants self destructing on a variety of fronts, we will get to see what the Democrats can accomplish with a veto proof majority and Madam President working together. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: John Clements 16-Oct-2007, 07:01 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 16-Oct-2007, 04:17 AM)
It looks more and more like Hillary will be moving back into her house after the next presidential election.  With the Republicants self destructing on a variety of fronts, we will get to see what the Democrats can accomplish with a veto proof majority and Madam President working together. thumbs_up.gif

I agree with you about seeing what will happen, if Hillary gets in with a veto proof majority, but I don’t think that things will change much at all, until we can change the way campaigns are financed. Which I don’t believe will happen, because they, (that is the democrats and the republicans) like it the way it is.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. What I believe is going on here is…a “good cop bad cop scenario”. The good cops are the democrats, and the bad cops are the republicans, both, marching in lock step to squeeze out the middle class in this country. Why else do you suppose our education system stinks, and nothing is being done to stop illegal cheep labor from entering the country. To me, it’s that simple.

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 16-Oct-2007, 08:58 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 16-Oct-2007, 05:17 AM)
It looks more and more like Hillary will be moving back into her house after the next presidential election.  With the Republicants self destructing on a variety of fronts, we will get to see what the Democrats can accomplish with a veto proof majority and Madam President working together. thumbs_up.gif

Hillary just moved farther DOWN my list. Did you see her comment the other day saying torture was OK in some cases? (I don't think we should countenance torture under any circumstances, unless of course we are using the play book from the SS.) I thought that to be one of the MOST egregious acts by Bush & CO. He has been eroding our rights for a few years now and it looks as if Clinton is ready to follow along.

Posted by: maisky 17-Oct-2007, 02:53 AM
I would personally prefer Obama but believe Hilary will be unbeatable. Obama's very lack of experience in the political machine is one of his major assets. As far as Hilary's statement about torture CS, I agree with you that torture is totally unacceptable. Im not at all sure this reflects what her actions will be once she is president. Time will tell.

Posted by: gwenlee 17-Oct-2007, 07:25 PM
I see nothing that Hillary has to offer except more taxes. What is she thinking when she says she would give every baby born in the US a $5000 bond for college or buying a house? Or her plan to expand family leave time. Is she going to dip into her pockets and shell out the money, has she sat down and figured out how much this is going to cost us? She is preaching entitlement. All she is encouraging is a society that will be taken care of from the womb to the tomb. Is that what we want?
Personally I want less government in my life.

Posted by: maisky 18-Oct-2007, 03:08 AM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 17-Oct-2007, 07:25 PM)

Personally I want less government in my life.

Like what GW and his Republicant cohorts provided? Unsupervised wiretaps and the rest of the constitutional violations?

Posted by: John Clements 18-Oct-2007, 07:58 AM
What we need is an independent government…to govern the government.
An independent government, that answers to us, and not their corporate masters.
In other words…an "honest" government! Kucinich…all the way.

Posted by: Dogshirt 18-Oct-2007, 07:06 PM
QUOTE
I see nothing that Hillary has to offer except more taxes. What is she thinking when she says she would give every baby born in the US a $5000 bond for college or buying a house? Or her plan to expand family leave time. Is she going to dip into her pockets and shell out the money, has she sat down and figured out how much this is going to cost us? She is preaching entitlement. All she is encouraging is a society that will be taken care of from the womb to the tomb. Is that what we want?
Personally I want less government in my life.


If the Bitch gets elected, I belive I'll move to Canada!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 18-Oct-2007, 07:43 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 17-Oct-2007, 08:25 PM)
Is she going to dip into her pockets and shell out the money, has she sat down and figured out how much this is going to cost us?

Probably she has given it more thought than the incumbent yahoo did about how much this war is costing, and is going to keep costing down into the next two generations. I'm not a raving fan of Hilary, but when it comes to spending without adequate planning, there's just no comparison, either for wrongheadedness or the staggering amount of money blown. As for less government -- those days are gone. You will either get more government with some degree of transparency, or more government masquerading as less, with a greater degree of covert, illicit and invasive control. Take your pick.

Posted by: John Clements 18-Oct-2007, 07:56 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 18-Oct-2007, 08:43 PM)
Probably she has given it more thought than the incumbent yahoo did about how much this war is costing, and is going to keep costing down into the next two generations. I'm not a raving fan of Hilary, but when it comes to spending without adequate planning, there's just no comparison, either for wrongheadedness or the staggering amount of money blown. As for less government -- those days are gone. You will either get more government with some degree of transparency, or more government masquerading as less, with a greater degree of covert, illicit and invasive control. Take your pick.

Well said.

Posted by: maisky 19-Oct-2007, 07:00 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 18-Oct-2007, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE
I see nothing that Hillary has to offer except more taxes. What is she thinking when she says she would give every baby born in the US a $5000 bond for college or buying a house? Or her plan to expand family leave time. Is she going to dip into her pockets and shell out the money, has she sat down and figured out how much this is going to cost us? She is preaching entitlement. All she is encouraging is a society that will be taken care of from the womb to the tomb. Is that what we want?
Personally I want less government in my life.


If the Bitch gets elected, I belive I'll move to Canada!


beer_mug.gif

Have a nice trip! beer_mug.gif

Posted by: John Clements 19-Oct-2007, 12:12 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 18-Oct-2007, 08:06 PM)

If the Bitch gets elected, I belive I'll move to Canada!



You know I was pulling for Kucinich, but now I think I’ll start rutting for Hillary.

Posted by: stoirmeil 19-Oct-2007, 12:36 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 18-Oct-2007, 08:43 PM)
I'm not a raving fan of Hilary, but when it comes to spending without adequate planning, there's just no comparison, either for wrongheadedness or the staggering amount of money blown.

OK, so there is a comparison. Excuse me:

To fund the entire SCHIP program for one year, one would simply have to stop funding the war in Iraq for one month. Doing the math, a one-year moratorium would fund health care for all children in the US for twelve years. The first twelve years is a nice long start for a foundation in good preventive health.

Now, I'm not saying that is a practical thing to do -- hard to call off a war for a one-year break and then resume, like the English stopping every afternoon at four for tea. But it does provide a little sense of scale, when it comes to the objection about "squandering" public money on health care for children. Even if a fraction of the war expenditure were spent on children and the rest on really effective and well-administered homeland security and infrastructure upkeep on our own turf, it would be a vast improvement in cost efficiency for the very things so many of us fear -- not to mention a considerable saving of what money can't pay for and never could: blood on the ground instead of running in the veins. Everybody's blood.

Posted by: Robert Phoenix 19-Oct-2007, 02:32 PM
I see Steve Colbert is now running for President. According to his program last night he is running as both a democrat and republican. His platform is he is South Carolina's favorite son.

Tempting....

Posted by: stoirmeil 20-Oct-2007, 06:21 AM
QUOTE (Robert Phoenix @ 19-Oct-2007, 03:32 PM)
I see Steve Colbert is now running for President.  According to his program last night he is running as both a democrat and republican.  His platform is he is South Carolina's favorite son.

Tempting....

The idiot. If he wastes even a thousand dollars on a stunt run, I'd like to rub his snarky nose in it and make him work in a soup kitchen for a year.

Posted by: stoirmeil 22-Oct-2007, 09:39 AM
So funny listening to that gaggle of conservatives going at each other last night. In a way it's too bad Giuliani is not going to get their nomination -- he's too different and too "New York" to carry the country's conservative banner. But listening to him among the others, you hear a complex brain behind an articulate presence. Not that I LIKE the guy, or ever agreed with him. But he doesn't think or sound like the usual good ol' boys, and what a welcome relief when you're trying to track this stuff live.

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Nov-2007, 11:08 AM
Now be honest --

is there anybody who thinks they can STANDthis circus for another whole year?
bangin.gif clown2.gif fish.gif

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 01-Nov-2007, 04:04 PM
I've got an idea; everything else has been outsourced to third world countries, why not the White House too?

Posted by: John Clements 02-Nov-2007, 06:07 AM
QUOTE (TheCarolinaScotsman @ 01-Nov-2007, 05:04 PM)
I've got an idea; everything else has been outsourced to third world countries, why not the White House too?

I like that idea, and while we’re at it. I herd another good idea this morning, and that is… to have the Republican convention in Bagdad. That works for me.

Kucinich… Kucinich… Kucinich…

Posted by: John Clements 02-Nov-2007, 07:52 AM
Today on the Huffington Post, Arianna said that Giuliani has the soul of a thug, but I say that can't be, because Giuliani sold his soul a long time a go.

Kucinich… Kucinich… Kucinich…

Posted by: CelticRose 02-Nov-2007, 08:29 AM
I honestly don't know who I am going to vote for this time around. It is sad that we have how many millions of Americans and this is all we get?! I have always voted Republican in the past but there is no one I particularly like at this point in time. And I definitely don't like any of the democrats, especially Hillary. She grates on my nerves enough as it is. Plus I find her to change her views as often as Basken Robbins changes its ice cream flavors. It is kind of like what will the people "want to hear" kind of thing. A friend emailed me this fun test or whatever you want to call it and I found the results very interesting. Most people told me after they took it, it pretty much matched who they were thinking of in the first place. So have a little fun in the midst of a very serious topic. wink.gif smile.gif

Subject: 'find your candidate'

>
> THIS IS PRETTY GOOD -----TRY IT........
> The following is an interesting exercise.... You answer a few questions
> then click the 'find your candidate button' and the program selects the candidate who's
> position on the issues is most
> like your own... You may be surprised at what you find.
>
> http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Posted by: valpal 59 02-Nov-2007, 09:34 AM
WOW!!! I couln't believe who was at the top of the list after taking the test. I WIIL NOT be voting for them, but it suprised me that we agreed on most things. I really don't know who I am going to vote for.

stoirmeil---Honestly, another year of it will more than likely drive me insane and cause me to kill the tv. LOL

Posted by: JaneyMae 02-Nov-2007, 12:25 PM
Well alrighty then. That just told me to vote for the person I was going to vote for. Validation!!!!

I am so tired of the elections already!! I think we should all line our TVs up and have a firing squad.

Posted by: John Clements 02-Nov-2007, 03:00 PM
Having answered all the questions only confirmed what I already thought, Dennis Kucinich all the way.

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Nov-2007, 05:04 PM
S'a fun questionnaire. Makes me want to jiggle it to see what I have to do to get a Rudy or a McCain.


Oh -- came up with a 3-way tie between Hillary, Barak and Edwards. blink.gif
Weird.

Posted by: John Clements 07-Nov-2007, 06:57 AM
Good Morning All

Double click on the following link to see the results of a mock internet vote, held by: Democrats for America. I think is says a lot about what we’re heading, and seeing on the corporate controlled media.

The results are in. I want to thank you for sending a loud and clear message to the business-as-usual Washington pundits. You have made it clear that the Democratic Presidential Primary is far more competitive than beltway insiders would have you believe.
With over 150,000 votes cast, the DFA Pulse Poll is the largest internet poll to date in the 2008 primary.
The political pundits and beltway Democrats have been claiming that the primaries are already over, but 95% of the votes cast prove they are wrong.
Progressive activists want clear positions on Iraq and Iran. They're concerned with the power of special interest money in elections, and they want strait talk on issues such as funding social security and presidential power. DFA members want a Presidential candidate who will fight for progressive values and are looking for the candidates who are committed to changing the way politics is conducted in America.
Take a look for yourself. Check out the interactive results now:

http://DemocracyforAmerica.com/pulsepoll/results

Posted by: John Clements 13-Nov-2007, 08:41 AM
Now that Pat Robertson’s has endorses Rudy Giuliani. We can say that birds of a feather, (chicken hawks that is) flock together.

Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Nov-2007, 09:47 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 13-Nov-2007, 09:41 AM)
Now that Pat Robertson’s has endorses Rudy Giuliani. We can say that birds of a feather, (chicken hawks that is) flock together.

laugh.gif
They aren't really birds of a feather . . . the first thing I thought of was that someone (maybe Hilary) who wants to knock Rudy down paid off Robertson to endorse him.

Like, somebody (maybe Rudy) will eventually pay off Al Sharpton to get behind Hilary, hoping it will kill her chances.

You remember Aragones' cartoon "Spy Versus Spy", in the old Mad Magazine? Like that. smile.gif

Posted by: John Clements 18-Nov-2007, 09:04 AM
Once again, I think Dennis Kucinich clearly won the “so called” democratic bate the other night. All though I have to say, that John Edwards was close on his heals.

But still, both the corporate owned media, and the corporate owned democrats, refuse to acknowledge Kucinich. If you ask me, I think Dennis Kucinich is being deliberately shunned, because the last thing “they” the corporate robber barons want…is change!

So, what one has to ask oneself is: (to quote somebody) “Are you better off now, then you were yesterday”? I think not!

Oh by the way. I think if your rights go away, so does your security, for they are one and the same! But then Dennis Kucinich never got to answer the question, about which was more important…did he.

Posted by: haynes9 18-Nov-2007, 05:27 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Nov-2007, 09:04 AM)
Once again, I think Dennis Kucinich clearly won the “so called” democratic bate the other night. All though I have to say, that John Edwards was close on heals.

But still, both the corporate owned media, and the corporate owned democrats, refuse to acknowledge Kucinich. If you ask me, I think Dennis Kucinich is being deliberately shunned, because the last thing “they” the corporate robber barons want…is change!

So, what one has to ask oneself is: (to quote somebody) “Are you better off now, then you were yesterday”? I think not!

Oh by the way. I think if your rights go away, so does your security, for they are one and the same! But then Dennis Kucinich never got to answer the question, about which was more important…did he.

They do the same thing to Hunter and Paul in the Republican debates, John. Pretty frustrating, isn't it?

Posted by: Robert Phoenix 18-Nov-2007, 10:14 PM
Gotta have a good media machine behind you to make sure you get lots of coverage and publicity if you are going to be president. I wonder if anybody did a study on how many times a person was mentioned in the media had an effect on who won. I wasn't really paying attention to the democratic side of things because all I heard was Hillery/Obama. I'll have to check out Kucinich because I hadn't even heard him mentioned anywhere before.
And yes Haynes 9 it was really frustrating to see Hunter and Paul kept off to the sidelines. Paul seems to have has a fair bit of common sense which is what I first like about him.

Posted by: John Clements 07-Dec-2007, 09:25 AM
“Why can’t we have a president who gets it right the first time?”
That question was asked by Dennis Kucinich, at the last so called democratic debate, and I think it’s pretty telling question, don’t you?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Dec-2007, 09:55 PM
Hey JC. Just woundering how you feel about Dennis Kucinich's stance on hand guns. Did you know he wants to ban them all from civilians. Just an FYI is all.


Plan to ban handguns
In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre in Blacksburg, Virginia, Kucinich proposed a plan that he says will address violence in America. Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that includes a ban on the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.[63]

The congressman has pushed for gun control, even as a city councilman. He did carry a handgun for a period of time in 1978 (under the recommendation of the police) when he was the target of a mafia plot.

Source, Wikipedia

Posted by: John Clements 09-Dec-2007, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 08-Dec-2007, 10:55 PM)
Hey JC. Just woundering how you feel about Dennis Kucinich's stance on hand guns. Did you know he wants to ban them all from civilians. Just an FYI is all.


Plan to ban handguns
In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre in Blacksburg, Virginia, Kucinich proposed a plan that he says will address violence in America. Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that includes a ban on the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.[63]

The congressman has pushed for gun control, even as a city councilman. He did carry a handgun for a period of time in 1978 (under the recommendation of the police) when he was the target of a mafia plot.

Source, Wikipedia

Hi Nova, I don’t think Kucinich is the end all and be all. He’s just the candidate who I agree with the most. As for him banning “legal” hand guns? I would have to appose him on that issue, unless of course I could be assured that “all” hand guns were eliminated. But I think we all know that’s not going to happen any time soon. And although I know full well that the gun issue is important, for me it’s just not on the front burner at the moment.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 09-Dec-2007, 09:10 PM
I am in favor of Mike Huckabee for President, but then so is Chuck Norris, anyone want to argue with him?

Posted by: Nova Scotian 09-Dec-2007, 10:29 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 09-Dec-2007, 08:37 PM)
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 08-Dec-2007, 10:55 PM)
Hey JC. Just woundering how you feel about Dennis Kucinich's stance on hand guns. Did you know he wants to ban them all from civilians. Just an FYI is all.


Plan to ban handguns
In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre in Blacksburg, Virginia, Kucinich proposed a plan that he says will address violence in America. Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that includes a ban on the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.[63]

The congressman has pushed for gun control, even as a city councilman. He did carry a handgun for a period of time in 1978 (under the recommendation of the police) when he was the target of a mafia plot.

Source, Wikipedia

Hi Nova, I don’t think Kucinich is the end all and be all. He’s just the candidate who I agree with the most. As for him banning “legal” hand guns? I would have to appose him on that issue, unless of course I could be assured that “all” hand guns were eliminated. But I think we all know that’s not going to happen any time soon. And although I know full well that the gun issue is important, for me it’s just not on the front burner at the moment.

Understood. That's what I thought anyway. biggrin.gif

Posted by: John Clements 10-Dec-2007, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 09-Dec-2007, 10:10 PM)
I am in favor of Mike Huckabee for President, but then so is Chuck Norris, anyone want to argue with him?

Any time any where! Now we are talking “arguing”, correct?

Posted by: John Clements 13-Dec-2007, 02:08 PM
In my opinion, the very idea that Dennis Kucinich, (for what ever reason), will not be allowed to participate in tonight’s…“so called Democratic Debate”, is so far beyond idiotic. It is a testament to just how, “fearfully shallow” we have become. At least that’s what I’m thinking.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 02:25 PM
Dear John,

I made the remark about arguing with Chuck quite tongue in cheek. I mean face it he will not come and beat you up if you dont vote for Mike Huckabee...or will he? LOL! Ask yourself, "Do I feel LUCKY?" Thanks for missing the humour I am now rolling on the floor with laughter! And I needed it, this beats the Penguin baseball for stress relief.

Posted by: John Clements 13-Dec-2007, 02:37 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 13-Dec-2007, 03:25 PM)
Dear John,

I made the remark about arguing with Chuck quite tongue in cheek. I mean face it he will not come and beat you up if you dont vote for Mike Huckabee...or will he? LOL! Ask yourself, "Do I feel LUCKY?" Thanks for missing the humour I am now rolling on the floor with laughter! And I needed it, this beats the Penguin baseball for stress relief.

Some times humor has a way of sneaking up on us.
Later
Robert

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 02:49 PM
Blessed Be!

Posted by: John Clements 18-Dec-2007, 04:52 PM
Incase you haven’t heard, Chris Dodd flue back to Washington DC from the campaign trail yesterday. To actually filibuster for some six hours or so, to stop a vote on the FISA bill, which was going to give the Phone Companies immunity, for illegally spied on us. As fare as I’m concerned Majority Leader Reid has moved up on my impeachment list, and Chris Dodd has moved up on my elect list. (Can you imagine a politician that actual did their job)?

See what MR. Dodd had to say...

http://chrisdodd.com/victory

Posted by: CelticRose 18-Dec-2007, 06:01 PM
Having not liked anyone running for this presidental race up until now, I finally found two people I really like......Huckabee and Ron Paul. So gonna be checking these two guys out even more from here forward. tongue.gif wink.gif biggrin.gif Just in case you all wanted to know! laugh.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 18-Dec-2007, 06:41 PM
I LIKE MIKE

<a href="http://www.MikeHuckabee.com" title="MikeHuckabee.com - I like Mike!"><img src="http://www.mikehuckabee.com/_images/banners/banner_ilikemikeblue.png" width="175" height="85" border="0" alt="MikeHuckabee.com - I Like Mike!" title="MikeHuckabee.com - I Like Mike!" /></a>

Posted by: John Clements 18-Dec-2007, 07:41 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 18-Dec-2007, 07:41 PM)
I LIKE MIKE


Isn't that, I LIKE IKE?

Posted by: CelticRose 18-Dec-2007, 08:02 PM
Hey! We like Mike (or Ike)...we like Huckabee! Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, anxious to see the Ron Paul interview tonight. Then will make my final decision as I don't like any of the other candidates so far on either side so far. I used to be a staunch Republican, but now I consider myself an independant so may the best man/woman win. It just so happens I like Mike and Ron the best out of the whole lot! wink.gif smile.gif

I just pray that the best person win...period! thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: John Clements 18-Dec-2007, 09:32 PM
QUOTE (CelticRose @ 18-Dec-2007, 09:02 PM)
Hey! We like Mike (or Ike)...we like Huckabee! Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, anxious to see the Ron Paul interview tonight. Then will make my final decision as I don't like any of the other candidates so far on either side so far. I used to be a staunch Republican, but now I consider myself an independant so may the best man/woman win. It just so happens I like Mike and Ron the best out of the whole lot! wink.gif smile.gif

I just pray that the best person win...period! thumbsup.gif

Hey, I hope that you prays are answered too…period!

Posted by: maisky 19-Dec-2007, 06:21 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Dec-2007, 09:32 PM)
QUOTE (CelticRose @ 18-Dec-2007, 09:02 PM)
Hey! We like Mike (or Ike)...we like Huckabee! Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, anxious to see the Ron Paul interview tonight.  Then will make my final decision as I don't like any of the other candidates so far on either side so far.  I used to be a staunch Republican, but now I consider myself an independant so may the best man/woman win.  It just so happens I like Mike and Ron the best out of the whole lot!  wink.gif  smile.gif

I just pray that the best person win...period!   thumbs_up.gif

Hey, I hope that you prays are answered too…period!


Don't worry, he (Obama) or she (Hillary) will. GWB has virtually guaranteed a Democrat as the next president through his stellar performance in the job.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 19-Dec-2007, 10:01 AM
GWB was a Monarch not a President, and one need only look back at the LAST Democrat that was in the White House to see what the Democrats are producing. Remember President Billary Clinton! He/she could have ruined the Nation given a little more time.

Anyone that thinks Bill Clinton was President never lived in Arkansas, it was Hillary that ran the country. Bill ws too busy chasing Skirts. As for Obama aat would be interesting since he would probabably order the Qran taught in school, and instead of the Military he would create a bunch of Terrorist to blow up the non-Islamic world. He is a Muslim Sympathizer that he is not a Patriot, there are numerous quotes that he has given that show that he is not in favor of the Pledge of allegiance (after all HIS allegiance is to a foreign power. As for his believes are taken from his father. Many in the US go to church as a social function not because they believe but because it is the thing to do. I suspect O'bama does it for Political advantage of the rights. How can he swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution after stating he wants to do away with parts of it?

<a href="http://www.MikeHuckabee.com" title="MikeHuckabee.com - I like Mike!"><img src="http://www.mikehuckabee.com/_images/banners/huckabee_banner_05.gif" width="234" height="60" border="0" alt="MikeHuckabee.com - I Like Mike!" title="MikeHuckabee.com - I Like Mike!" /></a>

Posted by: gwenlee 19-Dec-2007, 08:48 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 19-Dec-2007, 12:01 PM)
GWB was a Monarch not a President, and one need only look back at the LAST Democrat that was in the White House to see what the Democrats are producing. Remember President Billary Clinton! He/she could have ruined the Nation given a little more time.

Anyone that thinks Bill Clinton was President never lived in Arkansas, it was Hillary that ran the country. Bill ws too busy chasing Skirts. As for Obama aat would be interesting since he would probabably order the Qran taught in school, and instead of the Military he would create a bunch of Terrorist to blow up the non-Islamic world. He is a Muslim Sympathizer that he is not a Patriot, there are numerous quotes that he has given that show that he is not in favor of the Pledge of allegiance (after all HIS allegiance is to a foreign power. As for his believes are taken from his father. Many in the US go to church as a social function not because they believe but because it is the thing to do. I suspect O'bama does it for Political advantage of the rights. How can he swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution after stating he wants to do away with parts of it?

<a href="http://www.MikeHuckabee.com" title="MikeHuckabee.com - I like Mike!"><img src="http://www.mikehuckabee.com/_images/banners/huckabee_banner_05.gif" width="234" height="60" border="0" alt="MikeHuckabee.com - I Like Mike!" title="MikeHuckabee.com - I Like Mike!" /></a>

I agree with most of what you say Druid, but I don't look at President Bush as a monarchy, but I do think he has been given some bad advice. I like Huckabee and he is for the fair tax.

Gwenlee

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 19-Dec-2007, 08:52 PM
Huckabee is on record as wanting to abolish the IRS since it is Un-Constitutional. That is one of the things I like about him, that and he is Pro Second Amendment.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 19-Dec-2007, 08:57 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 19-Dec-2007, 09:52 PM)
Huckabee is on record as wanting to abolish the IRS since it is Un-Constitutional. That is one of the things I like about him, that and he is Pro Second Amendment.

Being pro 2nd amendment is high on my list. Cutting more taxes is another. I'm sure there are very few common folks who think they don't pay enough taxes.

Posted by: John Clements 20-Dec-2007, 11:56 AM
I’ve have to say. While guns exist, I have to be a proponent of the 2nd amendment, and I also have to say. Who can argue with abolishing the “IRS”, especially if led to abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank/World Bank? Who in my opinion are real culprits!

Let me ask this…What do you suppose the policies would be, of a candidate who was a 50-50 blend, of both Huckabee and Kucinich, and if so would you vote for that candidate? (Boy…Talk about a balancing act?) A balancing act that I don’t think we’ll see, at least until Aquarius comes around. (That is assuming we make it?)
Later,
JC

Posted by: maisky 21-Dec-2007, 06:26 PM
This is all pretty, but im sure you will all be discussing it after the democrats are firmly in the whitehouse.

Posted by: gwenlee 21-Dec-2007, 07:45 PM
God help us if the democrat gain full control. Neither party needs to be in total control. Too bad we can't get some people that are independent thinkers and aren't controlled by a partys agenda. I don't like the thinking of the democrats that it is okay to take a hard working persons money and give it to someone that doesn't work or has no ambition to better themselves. We need leadership that will stop spending money like we have bottomless pockets.

Posted by: stoirmeil 26-Dec-2007, 05:51 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 19-Dec-2007, 09:57 PM)
Being pro 2nd amendment is high on my list. Cutting more taxes is another. I'm sure there are very few common folks who think they don't pay enough taxes.

Well, your opinion is past praying for when it comes to guns. smile.gif But really, if you start clear-cutting taxes for this and that, who's going to pay for that little war draining us dry from underneath, talking about spending like we have a bottomless pocket, except maybe your beautiful new little girl and all her brothers and sisters -- and then her sons and daughters? The money we pay in now is not going toward, or growing by investment in, the right places, and it has been administered and apportioned irresponsibly by throwing money at social problems before -- I'll be the first one to grant you that -- but NO money set aside against war and other national debt, not to mention an enormous generation approaching retirement with zippo health coverage -- is going to pauper us as a nation, and not in some distant future we can't even see, but soon. Where do you see it being raised from? Big industry's voluntary donations?

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 26-Dec-2007, 06:21 PM
The Second Amendment is in place to protect us from becoming a Monarchy it is essential to the rest of the Constitution. And as for Income Taxes they are not found in the Constitution but are created by a Private Corporation that is not even on American Soil. These are two things that make me happy to support Mike Huckabee, in fact if he loses I will enjoy laughing at the people that voted Hillary in after all she had her 2 terms everyone in Arkansas will tell you that Bill Clinton was never Governor or President he was a Puppet for Hillary. God Bless the USA and keep us free from Clintonomics.

Posted by: stoirmeil 26-Dec-2007, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 26-Dec-2007, 07:21 PM)
After all she had her 2 terms everyone in Arkansas will tell you that Bill Clinton was never Governor or President he was a Puppet for Hillary.

Hillary is not exactly the sun in my sky. But this kind of sexist, reductionist calumny is irritating, and getting old rapidly, what with the debate menu and the brainless media coverage thereof. You have said this before, in almost the exact same words. Why don't you come out with some concrete historical examples of her hand up his back as his puppeteer, either in Arkansas or in the White House, instead of using one of the prime fallacies (argumentum ad populum) to say that "everybody knows" thus and so "in Arkansas" -- which is where the Clintons hail from, and mirabile dictu, so do you! Setting you up, I suppose, as an expert? Fine. So educate me in some kind of defensible terms.

dry.gif

Oh -- if you think strict gun control is going to bring us back screaming into a monarchy a la pre-1800, you haven't had an eye on Europe for the last 75 years. You really need another argument there -- at least the fear of a totalitarian junta out of the inner city.

Posted by: Shadows 26-Dec-2007, 06:57 PM
God protect us from them all!!!!

Ron Paul is a Libertarian running under the cloak of a republican...

Follow the constitution is his mantra... mine too!

When do we pick up our weapons and re-take this government???? of the people for the people????
Not screw the people!!!!

Sorry you all hit a nerve!

Posted by: stoirmeil 26-Dec-2007, 07:16 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 26-Dec-2007, 07:57 PM)

Sorry you all hit a nerve!

I know, and I don't mean to. I got carried away with the other thing, which has been hammering on the last nerve I have left for months now. They don't call me Stormy for nothing, and though I'm not conventionally a feminist in any way, this whole angle of "First Woman P" argumentation has me pretty much mean as a junkyard dog. Let him-her-it be president whom the job will not destroy in a mutually punitive and pointless partisan crossfire -- metaphoric, not another slam at guns, dear Shadows.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 26-Dec-2007, 07:44 PM
Okay here goes you want fact...here is a list of facts for you.

Bill cheated on Hillary from the very start of their relationship at Yale - but she married him anyway, in a "Faustian bargain" that accepted his womanizing as the price of political power
"Bill owes me": how Hillary allowed Bill to get away with his infidelities to make him fall deeper and deeper into her debt
Clinton insider: "Hillary never wanted to be a wife. She wanted to be president"
Hillary confidant confirms: she knew about Monica long before the affair became public
How Hillary personally stage-managed and coordinated the damage-control effort in response to the Lewinsky scandal
Juanita Broaddrick: her encounter with Hillary that told her "she knew" Bill had raped her, and that Hillary only wanted Broadrick to keep quiet
Did you know that Bill's Affairs are so well documented in Arkansas that no one thinks much of it, that was Just Bill being Bill. As for Hillary if she carries Arkansas it will be a miracle, she may be right that Bill owes her for all he put her through. But the U.S. Does not Hillary a thing. In fact how can Hillary in good faith say she will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when in fact she is opposed to the Second Amendment of said Constitution? And how can she say she will defend the interest of the US when in fact she knew of Bill's Affairs and kept silent in order to further her image as a Martyr? She is a fraud and a deceiver I would not vote for her if she were a man nor would I vote for a man that stood for the self-serving things that Hillary Clinton stands for. She stood by as Bill brought the US to the Position of Laughingstock with his affairs, in order for her to get the chance at the Brass Ring so that the Tax Payers will suffer further decline into the "One World" Government that she and her kind have as their Dream. It may be her dream, and it may be yours. But count me out!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 26-Dec-2007, 07:50 PM
As for my belief that the World Image of the US was damaged by Bill Clinton and by Hillary remaining silent on what she knew and when. Please do not take my word for it...I am not as you alude a Native of Arkansas, I have lived here for about a year but the things I have heard in that year have left my mind made up. Perhaps this will help you. The London Times recently wrote that President Bill Clinton "may forever be known as Bonking Bill, the president who could not keep his trousers on." There is certainly plenty of evidence to prove the Times right. Even before elected, candidate Clinton was dodging a barrage of accusations, ranging from sexual mischief, fathering an illegitimate child of a prostitute and sexual harassment.

One former Clinton insider described Clinton as " very lustful and bold, especially when he was around women he perceived might be receptive to his overtures." Arkansas State troopers, who were required to manage much of Clinton's schedule while governor, claim he often sent them to ask women to meet him.

The troopers say there are many women with whom "Bonking Bill" had affairs during that time. They report such antics as his sneaking out while his wife Hillary was asleep or inviting women in for "personal tours of the governor 's mansion" when she was working at the Rose law firm. Some of the women have talked openly about their affairs with Clinton but most of their spicy confessions have been ignored by the press.

Bobbie Ann Williams, a streetwalker in Little Rock claims Clinton used to pick her up while he was out jogging and pay her for sex behind hedges or in the back seat of his official limousine.

A Little Rock lawyer, Polly Kyle, wrote a fictionalized account based on an actual affair she claims to have had with Clinton, which has yet to find a publisher. She says she and Clinton had been lovers since they were at school in Hot Springs.

Susan McDougal, still in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the Whitewater scandal, is said to have been "Bonking Bill's" lover. Even in jail, she remains devoted to Clinton and unwilling to talk about it. Susan's husband, Jim, said recently that he knew she had an affair with Clinton. "How should I say this? They were intimate, there was no doubt in my mind." Susan said it was not so. "I'm a small-town girl, a Southern Baptist. I wouldn't do it." The McDougals were partners in the doomed Whitewater property deal with the Clintons.

Clinton lawyers and spin doctors until recently have managed to deflect, dilute and trivialize the steamy accusations, giving Clinton enough benefit of the doubt from the public that they reelected him. But the recent Paula Jones Supreme Court decision has got his lawyers and spin doctors worried. The Supreme Court had voted unanimously to reject Clinton's plea that a president is immune from private lawsuits while in office and therefore Jones should not be allowed to sue the president.

Jones alleges that a state trooper invited her to meet the then Governor Clinton at the Excelsior hotel in Little Rock where she was manning a conference registration table. She went to the room thinking Clinton would offer her a job, she said. Instead, she claims "Bonking Bill" fondled her, dropped his trousers and asked her for oral sex.

Ever since Paula Jones first made her allegations in 1994, Clinton loyalists have campaigned to smear and discredit her. Hatchet man James Carville, Clinton crusader in chief, once sneered: "Drag $100 through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll find."

In other words, according to Carville, Jones should not be believed because she is from the working class and even if something did happen in that Arkansas hotel room on May 8, 1991, well, she was that kind of girl and got the treatment she deserved.
YOU SEE THE WORKING CLASS DESERVE TO BE S###WED BY THE GOVERNMENT! Thats CLINTON POLICY!

Posted by: stoirmeil 26-Dec-2007, 09:51 PM
OK, so let's add the ad hominem attack to your list of techniques. Referring to Senator Clinton's husband by the nickname "Bonking Bill" and running off a whole load of unsubstantiated hearsay and muck says absolutely nothing about her qualifications. It is the same bull**** smear attack as we have been hearing ad nauseam of late. As I say, I am not any great fan of Hillary's on political grounds -- but these are not political grounds, nor have you cited a single one of these allegations as a "fact."

Nor will you find many (men, and possibly women as well) on either side of the divide who are paragons of the kind of virtue you seem to think passes or precludes a candidate from a run at the office. Not only that, you seem to be preoccupied with sexual mores in a rather limited way, as if marital purity is the primary index of a good leader. Take a look at the man in office now, if you think that's a criterion of greatness, or even aptitude. I sometimes think -- and this WILL get me in trouble, but at this point I'm so damned sick of the issue I hardly care -- that if we simply faced up to the fact that many if not most world leaders have a certain hunger for attention, or why would they seek such a hot seat as high office? and risk for that kind of activity just comes with the turf, we'd be a lot less the butt of jokes in the world than you claim we are when one of our leaders gets caught. It is a puritanical culture still, and a deeply hypocritical one. Have you spent any time in Europe among Europeans? Do you have any idea what they think of this smarmy little preoccupation of ours, and how we let it into our deeply serious national interests? (All together now: "We don't care what those bleepo-bleepo's think, we're 'MURCANS!" Well -- it's time we did wake up and start playing in the international arena as though our regard for the opinions of others mattered. It will never be safe or prudent in the world again to ignore everyone else. As far as the London Times -- well, evidently you've never seen a fox hunt among the self-purported Brit journalism nobility either. It's blood sport, they don't care who they run to earth or how savagely as long as it's a bloody good scrum at the death and someone comes away from it with the poor beast's brush hanging off his saddle. Clinton, Bush I and Bush II, Maggie Thatcher, the Queen -- all in a day's work. Take it seriously if you like.)

All your argument can be spun down to a thesis statement: Bill plays around and Hillary covers for him, because it's more a political partnership than a marriage. So now tell us, first, something we don't know and haven't known for many years, and then say why it gets your shorts in such a knot? Possibly because it's a political PARTNERSHIP between highly effective equals, not your typical man-and-wifie routine?

A partnership like that will withstand a great deal more in a crisis: it already has, and it may well have to again, but over things that really count, not another overblown personal event of common infidelity.

No -- I don't much support Hillary; but I am sick of this inequity that repeats itself mindlessly like the tune of an organ grinder with a dancing monkey, that she is a woman and her husband's lack of sexual continence as a matter of history (I doubt he'll get caught again -- it's just too expensive) bears on her candidacy.

Get over it.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 26-Dec-2007, 10:37 PM
Okay forgive me but I am not an Employee of the London Newspaper and it was, "The London Times recently wrote that President Bill Clinton "may forever be known as Bonking Bill," I simply quoted that to point out my assertion that it is not just those in Arkansas (which has a Population about the same as the city of Houston Texas) that know the kind of people Bill and Hillary are. I DID NOT CALL HIM THAT AN INTERNATIONAL PAPER DID. They prove my point that Bill and Hillary have for too long brought the US to Shame before the entire world. She is thought of by most here as a Gold Digging Opportunist a blatant liberal who at one time defended the Black Panthers on murder charges. Again I wish to state that Hillary would not carry Arkansas she is too well known here. Thats why she moved to New York among people that did not have a chance to know more about her than her slick Publicist wanted them to know. Well Arkansas folks are like a small town and she is the talk of the Town. New York can have her. Let her disgrace the Nation but let it be forgotten that she and Bill are from Arkansas. This is a nice state and the reason she left is that she never would have gotten into the Senate from Arkansas.

Posted by: stoirmeil 26-Dec-2007, 10:53 PM
I'll make the point again: "the world" does not consist of Arkansas and a London Times reporter; and we bring ourselves to far more shame as a nation, and with drearier regularity, by our provincial reactions to the peccadillos of our public figures than said figures could ever do themselves. "Shame" and "disgrace" can also be traded on the political spin market, both shamelessly and disgracefully.

You are right -- New York can have her, and does have her. She has not done a bad job at all for this state as junior senator -- mind you, as senator quite independently from being "Bill's wife," since he has his own fish to fry; but then, we don't spend quite all our time hanging over the back fence gossiping about her sheets.

By the way -- the ad hominem attack can be oblique -- you don't have to be the original author of a scurrilous nickname, you just have to bandy it about quoting it as "proof" of some point you want to make. It is still your responsibility.

Posted by: Dogshirt 26-Dec-2007, 11:27 PM
I'm not sure anyone who WANTS the office should be allowed to run! wink.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 26-Dec-2007, 11:41 PM
I give up Storm, you have made your point regardless of anything else Hillary is a woman and therefore she should be President because she wants it so badly and because after all she suffered so much at the hands of the evil man that she married. Yes folks lets hear it For Hillary the next President of the US. After all Nostradamus and the Mayan Calendars both say that the world will end in 2012 and that would be a fitting tribute to Hillary to be the President at the End of the World.Perhaps the Mayans and Nostradamus knew something about the Clintons we in Arkansas have not seen. After all as Storm points out Hillary has done a grand job in New York where she is among her own kind. They already have strict gun control laws, and one of the highest GUN CRIME rates in the Nation! There is proof how well Gun Control Laws work. Hey Hitler was pro-Gun Control. But in the Heartland we support Crime Control and the Constitution of the United States of America! Thats why those in the heartland support Mike Huckabee as the man from HOPE...Arkansas!

Posted by: Shadows 27-Dec-2007, 07:17 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 27-Dec-2007, 01:27 AM)
I'm not sure anyone who WANTS the office should be allowed to run! wink.gif


beer_mug.gif

I like your thinking Dogshirt!

Posted by: John Clements 27-Dec-2007, 10:54 AM
Boy! I take one day off, and all hell brakes loose. As for Hill/Bill Clinton, and the rest of them, with the exception of Kucinich and Edwards (in that order) I’ve taken to wearing ear muffs and a close pin on my nose. (it goes over big…in the supermarket) You know I’ve noticed that most people give me a wide birth…these days.

Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Dec-2007, 02:27 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 27-Dec-2007, 12:41 AM)
I give up Storm, you have made your point regardless of anything else Hillary is a woman and therefore she should be President because she wants it so badly and because after all she suffered so much at the hands of the evil man that she married.

I think you're having a little trouble sorting out who is saying what here, but given the clarity of the rest of your thinking, it's not surprising. YOU are saying this stuff I'm quoting, in this post, most likely as a somewhat crude form of sarcasm. I have never said I thought she should be president, for any reason -- in fact, I have said a fair few times that she's not my cup of political tea. What I did say, and what you're still missing, is that bringing any aspect of her gender, including details about her marriage, into the argument is a cheap-and-easy, mean-spirited and politically irrelevant smear tactic. And yes, that pisses me off, whether as a woman or just as a human being. furious.gif ranting.gif taz.gif

Did I just break the potty-mouth rules here? sad.gif

Posted by: John Clements 28-Dec-2007, 03:38 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 28-Dec-2007, 03:27 PM)
I think you're having a little trouble sorting out who is saying what here, but given the clarity of the rest of your thinking, it's not surprising.  YOU are saying this stuff I'm quoting, in this post, most likely as a somewhat crude form of sarcasm.  I have never said I thought she should be president, for any reason -- in fact, I have said a fair few times that she's not my cup of political tea.  What I did say, and what you're still missing, is that bringing any aspect of her gender, including details about her marriage, into the argument is a cheap-and-easy, mean-spirited and politically irrelevant smear tactic.  And yes, that pisses me off, whether as a woman or just as a human being. furious.gif ranting.gif taz.gif

Did I just break the potty-mouth rules here? sad.gif

What stoirmeil said.

Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Dec-2007, 05:05 PM
QUOTE (Shadows @ 27-Dec-2007, 08:17 AM)
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 27-Dec-2007, 01:27 AM)
I'm not sure anyone who WANTS the office should be allowed to run! wink.gif


beer_mug.gif

I like your thinking Dogshirt!

I do too, theoretically. I think really wanting the job shows a failure of self-preservation instinct bordering on suicidal. But I know you both remember LBJ, suffering from war backlash in his own era: "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve." A guy who didn't want it again and refused to be shanghaied into it. Where would that leave us, if the only one who could take it were someone who genuinely did not want it?


Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 28-Dec-2007, 05:40 PM
Hillary has wanted to be President since before she married Bill and she would do anything to get her goal for that I commend her, but as I said based on the things she stands for I would not want her for President, even if she were a man. If a man or woman wants to lead their leadership ability is at issue, Hillary has shown that she hides wrongs rather than standing up for what is right. So gender is not the issue here in fact if Mike Huckabee were to share her views, and her shady character, I would oppose him with equal vigor and yet the things I know about Mike and what he stands for make me support him. But a self seeking, egotist is not what I want for President no matter their gender. I would support Whoopi Goldberg, if it were just a gender position, before I would Hillary Clinton, I mean at least Whoopi Goldberg is up front about who she is and Hillary likes to hide behind masks. Besides Whoopie would carry clout as a Woman Candidate and as a Black she would be the first Non-White President so that gives her 2 firsts to Hillary's one! Hillary is known around these parts for being as phony as can be she has proven that time and time again.
I am happy that the People in NY are glad to have her represent them because she certainly does not speak for the average American. Hillary is an Elitist that feels the common people are not worthy of her, or those of her kind. And she is right the average person deserves to be represented by a REAL Person, not some media hyped, egomaniac that thinks her ideals are those of the Average American. Also the AVERAGE PERSON deserves respect it is the Average Person after all that pays the majority of the TAXES, and the Average Person that sacrifices for the betterment of this great Land, and the Average Person that has the most to lose when Hillary and her friends concoct land grabs and then bankrupt the companies, leaving the small investors holding the bag. This will be my last post on the topic of Ms. Clinton.
I find it funny that the London Times calls Bill Clinton Boinking Bill, and when I mention that as proof that the Clintons have done enough to damage America abroad you attacked me rather than address the comment. Perhaps you feel that it is not right to blame Hillary for Bills character...but there is an old adage, "Lay down with dogs and you will get up with fleas." She could have saved herself the scorn if she had come clean before Bill brought the nation into disgrace. He was the same leech here in Arkansas that he was in Washington, and SHE KNEW. But she rode along to get herself in the Media Spotlight then left Arkansas (wisely) to seek her fame in New York where people saw her as a victim, not as a Manipulative woman bent on taking power for the sake of power alone.

Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Dec-2007, 08:35 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 28-Dec-2007, 06:40 PM)
This will be my last post on the topic of Ms. Clinton.

I wish it were so, but sadly I don't believe it. If it's the last one here, though, that will be nice. Then maybe the thread can continue to do what it was intended to do -- talk about the idea of a woman, or specifically this woman, in the highest office -- instead of this relentless character assassination on so narrow a set of criteria.

Do I hear, by the way, a whiff of insinuation about New Yorkers as elitist? You have a funny idea about her New York activities, then. Let me tell you where they love the Clintons best: right here in Harlem. (Yes, HERE. I live ten blocks from the school I teach in, which lies at 138th and Amsterdam. That's Harlem. Tell me that's a privileged population. Tell me I'm elitist while you're at it -- and I'll tell you about the 70% majority of students I work with every day who don't have English as a first language. We think that's richness here, not a disadvantage.)

You could almost turn me into a fan of hers -- but truthfully I have deep reservations about some of the policies she proposes. But you are not in a position to say how she functions here, or how she is perceived. I can tell you she is not seen as a victim, because she isn't one; but you can't let go of that, because it's the emotional core of your argument against her.

God knows why.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 29-Dec-2007, 07:56 PM
According to one Observer Hillary is the Puppet for Bill...so much for a woman President, lets look to Whoopie Goldberg...Whoopi for President and its Party TIME! LOL



Which Clinton Running the Show?

As Bill Clinton crisscrosses America defending his wife's candidacy, he's fueling speculation about who'd be in charge should Hillary be elected.

Sen. Clinton — the incredible shrinking candidate — seems at times almost a bystander at her husband's campaign, merely playing a somewhat more active role than she did in '92.

In our modern era of dynastic politics, the elder members of the dynasties have a duty to step aside to let their less experienced heirs shine. Former President George H.W. Bush, for example, has stayed well out of the limelight to let his son have center stage. Yet Bill Clinton is playing an ever-larger role in his wife's campaign.

At first, his appearances were novel and politically helpful. But then they came to underscore her weakness.

It was as if Dennis Thatcher had stood up for Maggie as she faced down the Argentine junta in the Falklands war. Now, Bill's oversized presence on the national stage raises an even more profound question: Is he using his wife's candidacy to seek a third term in office, prohibited him by the 22nd Amendment?

Increasingly, he seems like former Gov. George Wallace, who put his wife Lurleen into the Alabama State House after he was forced from office by term limits. (Or, in a more recent example, like Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, who stepped aside only to have his wife, Christina Fernandez Kirchner, take power.)

In '90, Hillary Clinton faced a similar problem when she flirted with the idea of running for governor of Arkansas. Bill, determined to seek the presidency in '92, was weighing whether to run for another term as governor or to step down and seek the presidency as a private citizen.

Key to his decision was whether Hillary could take his place, both to keep the seat warm for him should he lose the presidential race and to stop any unwanted revelations from surfacing while he was off campaigning.

But the polls I took at the Clintons' behest found that voters saw Hillary merely as an extension of Bill, not as an independent political figure. Arkansans saw her possible candidacy for governor as an attempt to be a placeholder for her husband.

When I likened the public reaction to Hillary's candidacy to that of Alabama voters to Lurleen's years before, Hillary and Bill exploded in shock and indignation (more his than hers) at the metaphor; they even asked me to do a second poll to confirm the results.

Hillary thereupon began a 20-year effort to differentiate herself from Bill and craft an independent identity.

Now that project is at risk. Bill's intervention has become so overt, voluble, high-profile and independent that it calls into question the entire premise that Hillary is running for president as anything other than a figurehead.

The idea that you get "two for the price of one" was a misnomer in the '92 campaign when Bill first broached it. He was always the president. Yes, Hillary was his chief adviser in '93 and '94 (and again between '98 and '00). But in '95, '96 and '97, she acted merely as first lady, touring the world and promoting her book.

Until Bill began his active campaigning for Hillary, she benefited from the merger of their identities. Lacking much experience on her own (except for the healthcare debacle), she could expropriate his record to provide a basis for her candidacy. She could run promising an extension of his presidency, but in a new time with a new candidate at the top.

But now the merger is working against her. Voters are wondering for which Clinton they will be voting when they pull the lever.

Could it be that "two for the price of one" still misrepresents reality? Does Bill so dominate the stage that he'd overshadow his wife were she elected? As Bill campaigns all over all the time, Americans are wondering, Whose presidency will it be, anyway?

© 2007 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann


I had to share this that I got from a friend in NY!! Gods Bless ya Terry!


Posted by: maisky 30-Dec-2007, 06:12 PM
You dont have to listen to Hillary long to understand her independence. Indeed, as First Lady, she carved her share of power out of the post. If there is any question of who was in charge, Bill has long been in the backseat for policy. On his side, he WAS in charge of relations with interns. biggrin.gif

The alternatives on the Republicant side will certainly give the Democratic candidate a direct line on the the Presidency. Where we worry about putting the LDS Council of 12 in charge (like they are in Utah politics) or Huckleberry Hound, Hillary looks better all the time.

Posted by: stoirmeil 01-Jan-2008, 04:00 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 29-Dec-2007, 08:56 PM)

© 2007 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann


You do remember who Dick Morris is, don't you? Is your memory that short? Check out the Sept. 9, 1996 issue of Time magazine. If you trust this couple for a valid assessment of the Clintons in 2007, your Alzheimer's is taking over.

Posted by: John Clements 02-Jan-2008, 12:36 PM
Of course I could be mistaken, but didn’t this use to be call: (Who Should Be the Next President) not the (First Woman President)?

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Jan-2008, 03:07 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 02-Jan-2008, 01:36 PM)
Of course I could be mistaken, but didn’t this use to be call: (Who Should Be the Next President) not the (First Woman President)?

That's really odd, amigo, but I think you may be on to something. I could have sworn there were two separate threads, but I can't find the one that says "Who should be the next president?"

Now, who would have changed the title of the thread? ohmy.gif

So, JC, your man threw in the towel and now he's backing Obama . . .

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 02-Jan-2008, 04:44 PM
Interesting that a GREMLIN changed the Thread mid post. Perhaps it was the same revisionist that the Clinton's hired to clean up Bill's Image when he went after the Top Job? But that aside just as the Public was not fooled for long by Bill, I think the Gremlins that changed the title of this thread think that changing the name was a SLICK move. It was a cheap shot at trying to concede that the chances of the US getting a SECOND Clinton in office is inevitable, believe me it is not. If there were only Democrats in the running for the top slot I would write in Whoopi Goldberg before I would vote for a Hillary, the "I'll do anything to be President" Candidate!

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Jan-2008, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 02-Jan-2008, 05:44 PM)
I think the Gremlins that changed the title of this thread think that changing the name was a SLICK move.

We don't know that anyone did anything to it. It's for the mods to check, and I'm requesting that someone do that, in light of the system problem that went down around Christmas Eve or so. Meanwhile, your presumptions and accusations are a tad bit out of line.

Correction -- it was the morning of December 22nd.

Posted by: Aaediwen 02-Jan-2008, 07:27 PM
I'll go ahead and post here in an attempt to clear this up quick. It is possible that the thread topic was reset incorrectly. There is no way to know for sure if this is the case or not due to the problems cited above. There is not, and never was any unethical ulterior motive to it political or otherwise. The whole issue caused us, and Paul specifically, quite a few headaches to remedy as best as has been done. To perform such an edit to influence the apparent opinion of a member or the direction of a thread would go against everything this site stands for. Again, although it is possible that the title was changed incorrectly after the events a couple weeks ago, you can rest assured, that it was not specifically done to change the nature of the thread.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 02-Jan-2008, 07:37 PM
Ah well trickery or not I for one have nothing further to contribute to either toe original topic or the renamed Topic. All I can say is that I do hope the best candidate wins, or the Prophesies of the Mayans and of the Brahan seer, and of Nostradamus that th end will occur in 2012 could have ream bad connotations.

Posted by: John Clements 02-Jan-2008, 08:00 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 02-Jan-2008, 04:07 PM)
So, JC, your man threw in the towel and now he's backing Obama . . .

He didn't throw in the towel. He just gave an alternative, should he not get enough votes to continue. It’s either that or he is going to have a sex change, to match the new thread title. Either way I still think he’s the best “person” for the job.
PS: Although if the choice came down to Whoopi Goldberg or Hillary Clinton. I’d have to go with the valley girl…Whoopi!

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Jan-2008, 08:06 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 02-Jan-2008, 09:00 PM)
He didn't throw in the towel. He just gave an alternative, should he not get enough votes to continue. It’s either that or he is going to have a sex change, to match the new thread title. Either way I still think he’s the best “person” for the job.

happy.gif
Whoopi's no dumb bunny.

Posted by: gwenlee 02-Jan-2008, 08:09 PM
Well politics has always caused a lot of heated passion. And of course all of us want to be heard and be right in our opinion.

Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't mean that we should treat her with kid gloves. If she can dish it out then she is going to have to take it. If she can't run with the big dogs then she should stay on the porch. She is just as guilty as the next candidate about character assassination. This tactic is probably used because they have nothing better to say and have no platform.

Posted by: stoirmeil 02-Jan-2008, 08:18 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 02-Jan-2008, 09:09 PM)
If she can't run with the big dogs then she should stay on the porch.

Meaning that the stuffed suits are "big dogs"? biggrin.gif And she is perhaps a peekie-poo, or some obnoxious yapping thing?

I have not heard Hillary worming insinuations into her polemic about anybody's personal or marital business in this campaign. To be frank, most of the stuff said by candidates on both sides verges on low blows of an ad hominem nature, too often for my taste -- but even the most conservative and holier-than-thou among the right have not stooped to impugning Senator Clinton for her husband's history of philandering. That's what was happening here in this thread. Am I drawing too fine a distinction?

Well -- that's justice for you. All this arguing has pulled in a Google spybot ad about stopping "Hillary-Care" down at the bottom of the page. No lack of parasitic and opportunistic polemic in this system at all. Why anybody wants the freekin job is outside my ken. sad.gif

Posted by: gwenlee 02-Jan-2008, 08:47 PM
Can anyone say why they screened questions before they were addressed to Hillary? It has been said by a lot of political experts that things have been held back when it comes to Hillary. Because she is a woman, and she has even made that comment herself.

Maybe I should have said if she can't run with the big boys she should stay in the kitchen.

Posted by: Dogshirt 02-Jan-2008, 09:23 PM
QUOTE
And she is perhaps a peekie-poo, or some obnoxious yapping thing?


In the world of politics she is that or less. She's just a Junior Senator. Does she think being the wife of a former President give her the EXPERIANCE that she's been touting? She doesn't have a speck more experiance than any of the others, and less than most.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 02-Jan-2008, 09:43 PM
Gwenlee, How can you say such don't you see the lovely clothes the Emperoress Clinton is wearing. All those in her camp see them and are impressed it is only those not under her spell that believe her to be naked. And that is a discredit to her wonderful Spin Doctor (tailor). Here maybe these rose colored glasses will help you see the other side of things better. If not then at least her arse will not be as blindingly bright as that of her Mentor.

Posted by: gwenlee 03-Jan-2008, 08:14 AM
Well said Dogshirt. Druid I see very well, you can keep the rose colored glasses LOL. Hopefully those who are so in love with the idea of a first woman president will take a closer look at her and realize she is NOT leadership material.

Posted by: Celtic Radio 03-Jan-2008, 09:00 AM
Just to confirm that we did have some gremlins messing with the database a few weeks back!

Basically, the topic table corrupted and we had to go back to our last good copy which was from August because our backup jobs were not running correctly.

We had to rename all topics from August to December. This required us manually going through each topic, reading it, and assigning it a topic name.

Hence, this is why the topic name changed. If anyone remembers the orginal name of this thread, just let me or one of the other admin/mods know and we can update it!


Posted by: John Clements 03-Jan-2008, 10:50 AM
QUOTE (Celtic Radio @ 03-Jan-2008, 10:00 AM)
Just to confirm that we did have some gremlins messing with the database a few weeks back!

Basically, the topic table corrupted and we had to go back to our last good copy which was from August because our backup jobs were not running correctly.

We had to rename all topics from August to December. This required us manually going through each topic, reading it, and assigning it a topic name.

Hence, this is why the topic name changed. If anyone remembers the orginal name of this thread, just let me or one of the other admin/mods know and we can update it!

Hi Paul, it just so happens that I track some of these threads, and this one was called: (Who Should Be the Next President), or words to that affect.
Maybe there should be a new thread called: First Woman President?
(Although how much can one say, with only one woman in the mix, not to mention that gender should matter.)
Thanks
JC

Posted by: Celtic Radio 03-Jan-2008, 01:05 PM
Thanks John! I have update the topic. Any other topics you want changed that you think are incorrect, please let me know....

and now back to the discussion.............

As far as who I think should be the next President I am undecided. I keep jumping from candidate to candidate!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 03-Jan-2008, 03:51 PM
The results from Iowa are looking like it will boil down to a race between O'bama (Not an Irishman despite the O' at the start of his name)! And Mike Huckabee. At least thats the scuttlebutt I have heard from the Political analysts. In fact it seems to me that the current topic is appropriate for this string because unless there is a Miracle Ms. Rodham-Clinton will remain a hopeful but no longer a serious candidate. And this result seems to be born out, remember Ronals Reagan? He was a dark horse candidate before the win in Iowa he was fourth in the polls then after Iowa he was a shining Star. Pun intended!

Posted by: stoirmeil 03-Jan-2008, 07:04 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 02-Jan-2008, 09:47 PM)
Can anyone say why they screened questions before they were addressed to Hillary?  It has been said by a lot of political experts that things have been held back when it comes to Hillary.  Because she is a woman, and she has even made that comment herself.

Maybe I should have said if she can't run with the big boys she should stay in the kitchen.

That's an interesting question. I would hazard a guess that it's misplaced chivalry, which like it or not is a sexist position, and a very deeply ingrained one. But I truly doubt, if anyone asked the senator herself whether she wanted questions vetted for propriety or cordiality before they are fired at her, that she would say "yes." Doubt it very much. No feminist, especially one in this overwhelmingly male game, would want that said of her. If she mentioned it herself, in what context, or with what tone? One of gratitude and appreciation? Doubt that too. smile.gif

I can't go with the revised version of the saying, I'm really sorry to say. It's just as sexist as the other one, if a little more species-friendly. As a woman, gwenlee, do you really like that contrast: run with the big boys or stay in the kitchen? It's some vision of a woman's choice of functions in this world. If she doesn't end up running with the big boys (or stuffed suits) all the way to the top, you can bet she's not going back to the kitchen, when she can get back in the senate, represent her constituency and write some legislation.

Posted by: John Clements 03-Jan-2008, 07:09 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 03-Jan-2008, 04:51 PM)
The results from Iowa are looking like it will boil down to a race between O'bama (Not an Irishman despite the O' at the start of his name)!

Come on Druid! There must be some Irish in him. I m mean haven’t you seen the movie: The Nephew.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 03-Jan-2008, 08:23 PM
JOHN I APPLAUD YOU IT SEEMS YOU HAVE CAUGHT THE HUMOUR IN MY POST. At my age I have learned that people who take themselves too serious are often dull, and they become dim as well. Those that think the Popular vote is crutial are sadly mistaken, ever heard of the Electoral College? That is where the Presidents come from in this nation. The man on the street really is duped into thinking his vote matters, no friend it was once that "We the People" mattered. But now our nation is about the Politicians running things to maintain status quo and they resist the efforts to return to a Constitutional Government. Where the rights of the Individual were Paramount. Read the Jefferson Letters (remember him from History Class?) Our nation has become a nation of Politicians and servants, though none dare call it a monarchy it is fast becoming one. There are now statutes on the books as Law that fly in the face of the Constitutional rights of the Citizens. Politicians would like to keep it that way. Or at elast most of them, the only one I ahve seen with the guts to try and restore the Constitution is Mike Huckabee. He is for the People, not the Elitist groups and special interest groups. Follow the money and you will see that BIG BUSINESS has an interest in seeing certain candidates in office because we would then have the best Politicians money can buy, however they are already BOUGHT. then you have the one that has a low budget approach to moving into the White House, the guy that is for the little people. Yes I am talking about the man whose slogan give a buck to Huck. He is not bough by the Major Corporations he is not in the pocket of the Special Interest groups. He is a man of conviction, and even though I do not agree with him on some points I know where he stands not where some one in Corporate America tells him to stand.

Posted by: John Clements 03-Jan-2008, 09:55 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 03-Jan-2008, 09:23 PM)
JOHN I APPLAUD YOU IT SEEMS YOU HAVE CAUGHT THE HUMOUR IN MY POST. At my age I have learned that people who take themselves too serious are often dull, and they become dim as well. Those that think the Popular vote is crutial are sadly mistaken, ever heard of the Electoral College? That is where the Presidents come from in this nation. The man on the street really is duped into thinking his vote matters, no friend it was once that "We the People" mattered. But now our nation is about the Politicians running things to maintain status quo and they resist the efforts to return to a Constitutional Government. Where the rights of the Individual were Paramount. Read the Jefferson Letters (remember him from History Class?) Our nation has become a nation of Politicians and servants, though none dare call it a monarchy it is fast becoming one. There are now statutes on the books as Law that fly in the face of the Constitutional rights of the Citizens. Politicians would like to keep  it that way. Or at elast most of them, the only one I ahve seen with the guts to try and restore the Constitution is Mike Huckabee. He is for the People, not the Elitist groups and special interest groups. Follow the money and you will see that BIG BUSINESS has an interest in seeing certain candidates in office because we would then have the best Politicians money can buy, however they are already BOUGHT. then you have the one that has a low budget approach to moving into the White House, the guy that is for the little people. Yes I am talking about the man whose slogan give a buck to Huck. He is not bough by the Major Corporations he is not in the pocket of the Special Interest groups. He is a man of conviction, and even though I do not agree with him on some points I know where he stands not where some one in Corporate America tells him to stand.

You know I agree with most of what you said. Mostly because I’ve been saying the same stuff you years.

But Huckabee, you must be kidding. I mean this guy wants to turn the clock back.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned just the fact that he was a minister, makes him unsuitable. (One might even say that he is himself, a conflict of interest.) Just like the rest of the conflicts of interest’s that are in office as I write this.

Anyway John Edwards seems to be doing well, and after all he is my second choice, now that Dennis Kucinich has been totally black balled out of it.

We will see! We will see!
JC

Posted by: John Clements 03-Jan-2008, 09:57 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 03-Jan-2008, 09:23 PM)
JOHN I APPLAUD YOU IT SEEMS YOU HAVE CAUGHT THE HUMOUR IN MY POST. At my age I have learned that people who take themselves too serious are often dull, and they become dim as well. Those that think the Popular vote is crutial are sadly mistaken, ever heard of the Electoral College? That is where the Presidents come from in this nation. The man on the street really is duped into thinking his vote matters, no friend it was once that "We the People" mattered. But now our nation is about the Politicians running things to maintain status quo and they resist the efforts to return to a Constitutional Government. Where the rights of the Individual were Paramount. Read the Jefferson Letters (remember him from History Class?) Our nation has become a nation of Politicians and servants, though none dare call it a monarchy it is fast becoming one. There are now statutes on the books as Law that fly in the face of the Constitutional rights of the Citizens. Politicians would like to keep it that way. Or at elast most of them, the only one I ahve seen with the guts to try and restore the Constitution is Mike Huckabee. He is for the People, not the Elitist groups and special interest groups. Follow the money and you will see that BIG BUSINESS has an interest in seeing certain candidates in office because we would then have the best Politicians money can buy, however they are already BOUGHT. then you have the one that has a low budget approach to moving into the White House, the guy that is for the little people. Yes I am talking about the man whose slogan give a buck to Huck. He is not bough by the Major Corporations he is not in the pocket of the Special Interest groups. He is a man of conviction, and even though I do not agree with him on some points I know where he stands not where some one in Corporate America tells him to stand.

You know I agree with most of what you said. Mostly because I’ve been saying the same stuff you years.

But Huckabee, you must be kidding. I mean this guy wants to turn the clock back.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned just the fact that he was a minister, makes him unsuitable. (One might even say that he is himself, a conflict of interest.) Just like the rest of the conflicts of interest’s that are in office as I write this.

Anyway John Edwards seems to be doing well, and after all he is my second choice, now that Dennis Kucinich has been totally black balled out of it.

We will see! We will see!
JC

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 04-Jan-2008, 12:20 AM
For the record...

Clinton exaggerated in the past week by saying she had come a long way considering she started out in single digits in Iowa polls, even though no public surveys ever had her below the teens.
The benefit of arguing rivals have a stronger campaign? If Clinton had won, her victory would seem more impressive. Since she lost, it would seem to be expected. She is one slick operator, hey wait I better not say that about her since the media used to call her husband "Slick Wilie" she indeed has learned her lessons well. She may be a junior Senator but she is a superb Spin Doctor.

According to Iowa the choice for President is either Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee both of whom capped come-from-behind campaigns with Iowa victories on Thursday to win the first contests of the U.S. presidential nominating race. Now the pressure is on the other "also ran" Candidates. As for me the choice is clear that Obama will not protect and defend the constitution if it interferes with the Muslim goals of World domination. And of the front runners Huckabee has done the most with the lowest budget, hey if he can run a campaign on a low budget one can only wonder what he could do with the budget of this nation! So even though I am not a Christian I will back Huckabee since he supports the Declaration of Independence which is modeled after the Declaration of Arbroath.

Posted by: John Clements 04-Jan-2008, 12:23 PM
Just thought that you all might be interested in the kind of email I get! (you know I’m on a list somewhere)!


"It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary -- And a "Happy Blue Year" To All! ...from Michael Moore
January 3, 2007
Friends,
There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but deafening:
If you're a candidate for President, and you voted for the war, you lose. And if you voted and voted and voted for the war -- and never once showed any remorse -- you really lose.
In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United States.
Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.
John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving.
What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. I know that Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin, but all of us must acknowledge -- and celebrate -- the fact that one of the whitest states in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president. Thank you, Iowa, for this historic moment. Thank you for at least letting us believe that we are better than what we often seem to be. And to have so many young people come out and vote -- and vote for Obama -- this is a proud moment. It all began with the record youth turnout in 2004 -- the ONLY age group that Kerry won -- and they came back out tonight en force. Good on every single one of you!
As the only top candidate who was anti-war before the war began, Barack Obama became the vessel through which the people of this Midwestern state were able to say loud and clear: "Bring 'Em Home!" Most pundits won't read the election this way because, well, most pundits merrily led us down the path to war. For them to call this vote tonight a repudiation of the war -- and of Senator Clinton's four years' worth of votes for it -- might require the pundit class to remind their viewers and readers that they share some culpability in starting this war. And, like Hillary, damn few of them have offered us an apology.
With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in '04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican. And this is a red state! The Republican caucuses looked anemic. The looks on their faces were glum, tired. As the camera followed some of them into their caucus sites, they held their heads down or turned away, sorta like criminals on a perp walk. They know their days of power are over. They know their guy blew it. Their only hope was to vote for a man who has a direct line to heaven. Huckabee is their Hail Mary pass. But don't rule him out. He's got a sense of humor, he's downhome, and he said that if elected, he'd put me on a boat to Cuba. Hey, a free Caribbean vacation!
Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year, Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night. Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.
Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that other totally white state of New Hampshire!
Yours,
Michael Moore

Don’t you just love this guy, even if he is hard to look at?

Posted by: maisky 04-Jan-2008, 06:58 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 04-Jan-2008, 12:20 AM)
As for me the choice is clear that Obama will not protect and defend the constitution if it interferes with the Muslim goals of World domination.

Muslim goals from a Christian Senator? You must be living in your own private universe. laugh.gif

Or could your comments pure racial biggotry? I certainly hope not.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 04-Jan-2008, 07:12 PM
Going to a church does not make one a Christian any more than going to a Concert makes one a Musician. I have seen news photos of Obama on stage with other politicians during the Playing of the National Anthem, they were all at attention except him he was not even facing the flag, so now lets see him face the music.

Posted by: John Clements 04-Jan-2008, 08:05 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 04-Jan-2008, 08:12 PM)
Going to a church does not make one a Christian any more than going to a Concert makes one a Musician. I have seen news photos of Obama on stage with other politicians during the Playing of the National Anthem, they were all at attention except him he was not even facing the flag, so now lets see him face the music.

I heard Obama’s speech last night, on the radio today, and you’ve got to believe me, it was stunning. So, even though he’s now my second choice after Edwards, (based on some of his thinking). Obama could very well be the man.

As for Obama not facing the flag, or not standing at attention, while the National Anthem is being played. I’ve got news for you. I haven’t done either of those things since Bush got into office. It sounds to me like you’re grabbing at straws.

This campaigning is tiring, so I’m going to say good night now,
JC

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 04-Jan-2008, 09:48 PM
I do not think being tired is an excuse for a man/woman that wants to be the leader of this country not to have the courtesy to show respect for the emblems of the Nation. I am on crutches but believe you me that when the Colors are posted or the anthem played I rise and my hand is over my heart. Regardless of who is in the White House. It is not about the Politicians, it is to show respect for the country and for the men and women that have given their lives to keep this country free. I would never slack in respect for the Nation or those that have died to keep it free, in fact despite the fact that I am on crutches that has not kept me from devoting much time to the American Red Cross Disaster Services, but after 9/11 I left the Red Cross, I remember 9/11 well but even more I remember 9/13 when I was 28 foot from Ground Zero thanks to the Muslims and their war on America. I do not believe Hillary or Osama can protect this nation from a repeat of that kind of attack.

Posted by: stoirmeil 04-Jan-2008, 09:54 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 19-Dec-2007, 11:01 AM)
As for Obama aat would be interesting since he would probabably order the Qran taught in school, and instead of the Military he would create a bunch of Terrorist to blow up the non-Islamic world. He is a Muslim Sympathizer that he is not a Patriot [. . . ]

huh.gif
You've said this before, as I remember. Not to be difficult, but I really would like to know what you base this on. It's not something I remember hearing elsewhere.

Posted by: John Clements 05-Jan-2008, 07:51 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 04-Jan-2008, 10:48 PM)
I do not think being tired is an excuse for a man/woman that wants to be the leader of this country not to have the courtesy to show respect for the emblems of the Nation. I am on crutches but believe you me that when the Colors are posted or the anthem played I rise and my hand is over my heart. Regardless of who is in the White House. It is not about the Politicians, it is to show respect for the country and for the men and women that have given their lives to keep this country free. I would never slack in respect for the Nation or those that have died to keep it free, in fact despite the fact that I am on crutches that has not kept me from devoting much time to the American Red Cross Disaster Services, but after 9/11 I left the Red Cross, I remember 9/11 well but even more I remember 9/13 when I was 28 foot from Ground Zero thanks to the Muslims and their war on America. I do not believe Hillary or Osama can protect this nation from a repeat of that kind of attack.

“My country right or wrong” is not a philosophy I am a proponent of. (Never was, and never will be). You see I believe the real “terror” stems from this administration, and all who support it.

My guess is that you can’t see the forest for the trees. As in not admitting that you saw “controlled demolition” on 911, it’s called denial my friend. It’s not by accident that all roads lead to 911. Like you yourself once said. “Follow the money”!

So let me ask you. Have you see Loose Change, or Zeitgeist yet? If not you can find links to them on this site. And if you have already seen them, then I suggest that you watch them again, (except this time, try keeping your eyes, and ears open)!

By the way, that suggestion also goes for the rest of you out there.

To close let me say. With any hope, we can right this ship, and once again I can stand at attention, with my hand over my heart, (although I prefer to hold a salute) while our flag flies, and the anthems played.

JC

Posted by: haynes9 05-Jan-2008, 11:24 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 03-Jan-2008, 09:57 PM)
You know I agree with most of what you said. Mostly because I’ve been saying the same stuff you years.

But Huckabee, you must be kidding. I mean this guy wants to turn the clock back.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned just the fact that he was a minister, makes him unsuitable. (One might even say that he is himself, a conflict of interest.) Just like the rest of the conflicts of interest’s that are in office as I write this.

Anyway John Edwards seems to be doing well, and after all he is my second choice, now that Dennis Kucinich has been totally black balled out of it.

We will see! We will see!
JC

Hey John, it looks like both of our boys (Dennis and Duncan) are getting left out of the process. Of course, to be fair, neither one of them is polling worth a flip.

I don't think being a minister disqualifies Huckabee. Having said that, even though he is a Baptist as I am, he will never get my vote. Took a long hard look at his record and he is just like all the others who ignore the Constitution.

So aren't you proud of me, John? Just because the guy is a Christian, he doesn't get a free pass from me! wink.gif

Haven't forgotten about the film. I'm going to try and get it watched this next week. Take care!

Posted by: Robert Phoenix 05-Jan-2008, 06:34 PM
I still am favoring Ron Paul. It aways seems like he is ready to be pushed out of the limelight and then he manages to get back in again. He may not win this year but I think he will be a strong contender for the next election.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 05-Jan-2008, 11:28 PM
JOHN, Let me ask you something, Where were you on 13 September 2001? If you were like most of the people in America you were at work (it was a Wednesday). I on the other hand was taking Islam 101 held 28 foot from Ground Zero. I am and have been for many years with the American Red Cross Disaster Services. To you the attack on the US was a blurb on the evening news for a day or two then for you life went back to normal.I do not agree with the way Bush has handled the war, if it were up to me we would demolish Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden. But it is not up to me it is up to the man ELECTED by the US to serve as our leader. He instead took an approach that I do not like, he went after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush is the neighborhood bully that got beat up then went and beat up someone else. But the next leader needs to be firm and I think the best one for that is Huckabee after all he knows the Danger of not keeping our borders secure since the Illegals that come largly end up in Arkansas. Well if he were in the White House I believe he would secure the borders so that perhaps we would not have so much to worry about.

Posted by: Annabelle 06-Jan-2008, 10:39 AM
ok this is a great Topic! My fellow American's!

I should be the next President of America!

Here are the Top 10 Reasons I should be the next President!

#1: No one would be allowed to go to work before 10:00 in the morning
#2: There should be no taxes on your home, ever!
#3: Everyone would pay a straight 10% tax on whatever they made
(get those rich folks in there for once)
#4: Social Security would not be taxed cause it's already been taxed when you made it right? Isn't that Double Taxation? Let's have a tea party.
#5: Any one going on Welfare would only have 4 years they are allowed to be on it and then they can't get any benefits. There would be an education system to retrain for other jobs. Also once a week they would have to pick up trash in cities to get their checks. This would not only clean up America but make people understand you have to do something for it. If they have any children they are only allowed 1.5 kids.
#6: Everyone would be allowed to carry gun's on their hips so no one messes with each other. And lawyer's would be out of work cause if you get pissed at someone you just call em out for a shoot out!
#7. Beer would be free after 8 P M, the police will no longer be needed for crime but to keep the beer line after 8 every night. No line jumpers!
#8. Rap Music would be the official antheum (that way since no one can understand a word they say no one could get offended)
#9. Every person should have a person to love, even if we have to pay them!
#10. The Car of your Dreams (a one time offer) is half price.

Since I'll be starting my campaign program send all money to:

www.Iizcrazy.com

I take cash, cks, travelers cks, credit cards , I do not take anything that eats or requires any kind of maintence or feeding. Although I could put some women up on the corner of Watson Blvd on Sat nights and men at the Ruby Tuesday's on Sunday before Football games come on. We are a full-service administration.

Thank you for your time today and remember to vote

Annabelle




Posted by: John Clements 06-Jan-2008, 11:59 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 06-Jan-2008, 12:28 AM)
JOHN, Let me ask you something, Where were you on 13 September 2001? If you were like most of the people in America you were at work (it was a Wednesday). I on the other hand was taking Islam 101 held 28 foot from Ground Zero. I am and have been for many years with the American Red Cross Disaster Services. To you the attack on the US was a blurb on the evening news for a day or two then for you life went back to normal.I do not agree with the way Bush has handled the war, if it were up to me we would demolish Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden. But it is not up to me it is up to the man ELECTED by the US to serve as our leader. He instead took an approach that I do not like, he went after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush is the neighborhood bully that got beat up then went and beat up someone else. But the next leader needs to be firm and I think the best one for that is Huckabee after all he knows the Danger of not keeping our borders secure since the Illegals that come largly end up in Arkansas. Well if he were in the White House I believe he would secure the borders so that perhaps we would not have so much to worry about.

I’ll have to get back to on that. The little woman is breathing down my neck…to get out the door.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 06-Jan-2008, 12:27 PM
Anabelle, You mentioned concern about Taxes the ONLY CANDIDATE on record as favoring Abolishing the IRS in favor of a Fair Tax is Mike Huckabee, yes the Candidate from Hope, Arkansas! ( I heard there was a rumor of another native of Arkansas that was running but I think her campaign took a bad turn in Iowa). Arkansas is historically a strongly Democrat state with less than 40% in the state as either Republican or Independent. But Huckabee united folks here imagine what he can do for the nation. And unlike Rudy he will do it without having to keep a negative view of the future, since Rudy likes to build his claim to fame on the graves of those that died on 9/11. Really I mean if we want to prepare for crisis to come Rudy is the one that could do it, he has proven to be great at Reactive action, Huckabee is more of a Pro-active Candidate.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 06-Jan-2008, 02:25 PM
I ran across something interesting online..."MANCHESTER, N.H. - Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the luxury of being polite along with the Iowa caucuses. On the ropes after a third-place finish, Clinton is coming out swinging against new Democratic front-runner Barack Obama with a vigor she hasn't shown before in the contest she used to lead. She says she is the candidate who deserves the mantle of change, not this newcomer Obama." Change requires something new not the same old same old as represented by Clinton. She is running largely with the record of her Husband who was arguable the worst President in US History. But claims she offers a mantle of change. The only change I see her able to offer is a change in the Gender of the Corruption at the top. If I were a Democratic supporter (which I am not) I would vote for someone that was not part of the Machine, represented by the Big Name Democrats.
I chose instead to vote for a candidate that leads the Republicans and has done so with less money than the other front runners. I want a President that is not bought by Special Interest Groups and for my money (I sent a buck to Huck) Mike Huckabee is that candidate.

Posted by: maisky 06-Jan-2008, 06:21 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 06-Jan-2008, 02:25 PM)
She is running largely with the record of her Husband who was arguable the worst President in US History.

That would be GWB. Clinton gave us a roaringly prosperous economy and a budget surplus. Don't count on Huckleberry Hound getting past Guliani actually entering the race.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 06-Jan-2008, 07:05 PM
Can anyone here tell me one thing Hilary has done in her own right that even qualifies her to be President? One law she has been responsible for the passage of? Even perhaps a wee city ordinance? NO Why she has not done anything yet but hide the facts of her Husbands affairs instead of Practicing Sodomy he should have been working on the Economy. He raised Taxes whereas Huckabee wants to end the IRS. Does Hillary? No she wants to fund Abortions, too bad her Parents did not practice Abortion!

Posted by: Annabelle 06-Jan-2008, 07:07 PM
Interesting Topic!

I find alot of times that some Presidents get credit for things that were set up under the previous president. So they make that 4 year term look "marvelous".
Some "action" Presidents get things moving and have a substantial impact on the USA immediately but others just float along.
All politicians promise Tax reform ultimately and I need to remind you we are still in the stream of the political year so I'm sure they will all get around to it sooner or later.
I think they are all on a hard sell job to American's to get elected and have a permanent retirement income with personal security at no expense to them not to mention the speaking engagements they can do the rest of their lives and pull in tons of money with little or no effort when other people work minimum wages or are Supremem Court judges that want to vote themselves a pay raise but the military personnel can't get a miserable 3.5% pay raise which is presently on freeze. Our guys over in Iraq are over there risking their booty's and can't even get a pay raise but the Judge's which have limo service pick them up every morning and take them to work can vote themselves pay raises.
Sorry I'm not impressed with Democrats or Republicans.
There are somethings about our country that is just not right.
When most people vote, they do so only voting the lesser of two evils or they have blinders on and vote party lines. OMG! But that's what Freedom is all about.

Posted by: John Clements 07-Jan-2008, 10:42 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 06-Jan-2008, 12:28 AM)
JOHN, Let me ask you something, Where were you on 13 September 2001? If you were like most of the people in America you were at work (it was a Wednesday). I on the other hand was taking Islam 101 held 28  foot from Ground Zero. I am and have been for many years with the American Red Cross Disaster Services. To you the attack on the US was a blurb on the evening news for a day or two then for you life went back to normal.I do not agree with the way Bush has handled the war, if it were up to me we would demolish Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden. But it is not up to me it is up to the man ELECTED by the US to serve as our leader. He instead took an approach that I do not like, he went after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush is the neighborhood bully that got beat up then went and beat up someone else. But the next leader needs to be firm and I think the best one for that is Huckabee after all he knows the Danger of not keeping our borders secure since the Illegals that come largly end up in Arkansas. Well if he were in the White House I believe he would secure the borders so that perhaps we would not have so much to worry about.

You know I can’t stop thinking that some day, I’m going to wake up to realize, that I was just having a night mare on 911, (if only it were so)!

As to where I was on September 13th, (which by the way I believe was a Thursday, not a Wednesday) I don’t exactly know, but I can tell where, and what I was doing, some eight to ten minutes after the first plain hit!

I was watching television, while on the phone screaming, (where the hell are the F-16’s) to the local FBI office! I had made that call because the hair on the back of my neck was still standing up, having just heard, some (bone headed) TV news caster, referring to it as tragic accident!

In fact I was still on the phone with the FBI, while I watched the second plain hit. They had been telling me to calm down, and telling me that they didn’t need my help, because they said, and I quote: “That they had the situation under control”.

Yeah! Right!

You know Druid! I think you’ve got your courses a little mixed up, because I think you were actually taking, “treason” 101 that day, not “Islam” 101! And since we’re asking questions, I have a question for you, and the rest of you out there as well, and that question is. (In light of all the evidence) when are you going to admit, that the attack on 911, was in fact a covertly operation, planed and executed, by this administration, and not just by some dude, hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan!

Listen Druid, I have no doubt that you are a courageous and honorable man, but I do however, question your judgment. Just as I’m sure you question mine.

Hey! It’s just my opinion, and just like everyone else. I’m going to keep expressing it, until I expire. “One way or the other”! (No pun on the song…inted).

Later,
JC

Posted by: gwenlee 08-Jan-2008, 05:56 AM
I am glad that no fighters were dispatched. Can you imagine the repercussions for that order?

Posted by: maisky 08-Jan-2008, 06:59 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 04-Jan-2008, 07:12 PM)
Going to a church does not make one a Christian any more than going to a Concert makes one a Musician. I have seen news photos of Obama on stage with other politicians during the Playing of the National Anthem, they were all at attention except him he was not even facing the flag, so now lets see him face the music.

Druid, I was going to berate you for being illogical, inconsistent and basically full of it, but then I realized that being logical, consistent and not full of it were never requirements for this forum. So, spout away! Welcome to the club! beer_mug.gif

Posted by: John Clements 08-Jan-2008, 09:23 AM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 08-Jan-2008, 06:56 AM)
I am glad that no fighters were dispatched.  Can you imagine the repercussions for that order?

You’re glad that no fighters were dispatched? You know maybe you’re right. I mean how could they be able to explain the South Tower coming down? Especially if it hadn’t been hit by a plain, (which shouldn’t have been enough force to bring any of the building down in the first place)!

Oh well! They probably would have just ignored it. Just the way they ignored building 7, pan caking in on it self. (Even though it wasn’t hit by a plain)! Of course that’s not to forget an entire nation ignoring. That they know in their hearts, who was actually pushing those detonation buttons!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 08-Jan-2008, 10:48 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ 08-Jan-2008, 07:59 AM)
Druid, I was going to berate you for being illogical, inconsistent and basically full of it, but then I realized that being logical, consistent and not full of it were never requirements for this forum. So, spout away! Welcome to the club! beer_mug.gif

I was being logical, I mean Obama claims to be Christian yet where are the signs of it in his life? I am not, nor do I claim to be a Christian, but from the things he has said and done I would question his loyalties. And as for that if he is claiming to be a Christian as a Political Smokescreen he is no different than many of the other candidates who try to use smoke and Mirrors tactics to cover the truth and make people see what the people want to see. I mean look at Hillary and her claims to being so much more experienced as a Politician than Obama. Hey I have WATCHED Marcus Welby M.D., but I am not going to say that I am an Experienced Doctor. It seems that while Hillary was the wife of the President, Obama was actually in Politics himself...unless we concede that it was actually Hillary that ran the Government for the Clinton years...if so she had her 2 terms time for her to go back to New York and fade away like all good former Presidents. I say go back to New York because even though Arkansas is LARGELY Democrat most that I have talked to here do not want her or Bill to return here.

Posted by: gwenlee 08-Jan-2008, 12:02 PM
I think we have gotten off topic talking about 9/11. But for the record I don't believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, radical Islam is a threat to every western nation. Don't be fooled!!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 08-Jan-2008, 01:38 PM
Well said Gwenlee. While I have strong feelings about 9/11 it in and of itself is not an issue in this campaign, the issue is whether a man like Obama could make rational decisions about the security of this nation if another 9/11 attack were to occur. It matters not that the conspiracy theorist say it was not the Muslims that hijacked the planes. I wonder if they got that from the "Presidents Book of Secrets" Maybe Bill let Monica peek at the book? (that is said in humour so relax storm I am not picking on your "Golden Girl")

Posted by: Nova Scotian 08-Jan-2008, 01:39 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 08-Jan-2008, 01:02 PM)
I think we have gotten off topic talking about 9/11. But for the record I don't believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, radical Islam is a threat to every western nation. Don't be fooled!!

gwenlee
I agree with you 100%. Having been married into a family of Christian Arabs I've heard a lot of things Americans don't know, choose to ignore, or think doesn't matter. As for my friend JC, and yes I mean my friend, don't bother trying to change his mind because it won't happen. I stay out of this argument with him. Why you ask? We're both as stubborn as mules when it comes to what we believe and know or think we know tongue.gif . You just gotta love on um tongue.gif

Posted by: John Clements 08-Jan-2008, 08:17 PM
As far as I’m concerned, now that Kucinich has been totally “blackballed” out of the process, we have already lost! Of course that’s not to say, that all hope is gone, because Edwards is still alive.

Speaking of being alive, I have to hand it to Obama, because he is one hell of a brave man! (Even though I believe that Obama may be just more of the same…in the end).

And as far as 911 having nothing to do with this election, somebody should tell that to Rudy.

Hi Nova nice to hear from you.
JC

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 08-Jan-2008, 09:52 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 08-Jan-2008, 08:59 AM)
but then I realized that being logical, consistent and not full of it were never requirements for this forum.

They're not requirements for registering to vote either and that's what scares the hell out of me.

Posted by: gwenlee 09-Jan-2008, 08:09 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 03-Jan-2008, 09:04 PM)

I can't go with the revised version of the saying, I'm really sorry to say.  It's just as sexist as the other one, if a little more species-friendly.  As a woman, gwenlee, do you really like that contrast:  run with the big boys or stay in the kitchen?  It's some vision of a woman's choice of functions in this world.  If she doesn't end up running with the big boys (or stuffed suits) all the way to the top, you can bet she's not going back to the kitchen, when she can get back in the senate, represent her constituency and write some legislation.

I stand by the contrast. You may think that I am a woman that has never been out of the kitchen, and depends on a man for my identity. But I am not. I have worked outside of the home for my almost thirty years of marriage, raise 3 very independent strong daughters and a wonderful son. I feel Hilliary has no idea what it is like to be the average working American mother. I don't see any sincerity in her. And as far as her marital life, it is beyond me why any woman would stay with a man like Bill Clinton. Talk about someone who defines her life by the man in her life. She has stayed with Bill Clinton for political gain. Her marriage appears to be a well planned agenda with no substance.

Nova Scotian you are right. I have heard the stories from people who have lived under radical Islam I personally know people that risked everything to escape and their biggest fear is that these radical will get a foothold here in America.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 09-Jan-2008, 09:25 AM
Gwenlee your wisdom is a shining star in the bleak night here found. But then I have the capstone for the topic and been saving it for now as I believe it will please everyone, even those that believe in the most outlandish conspiracy theories...Who should be the Next President? How about the one voted for by the majority of the People, not just someone put in place by the Power Hungry and the Deceptive

Beannacht ort
Dealiach sogail!

Posted by: John Clements 09-Jan-2008, 11:01 AM
Just to keep this thread on track. I am going to continue to vote my beliefs in the election, (just like everyone else will probably do).

Don’t you just love it, the linchpin word is “change”, and incase you may have forgotten. “The more thing change, the more things stay the same”, which is exactly what’s happening to us, over, and over again!

If I’ve learned anything in my years on this plaint, I learned that there just no reasoning with fundamentalists, (that is fundamentalists of any kind)! Which would include non believers like me, (even though “reason”, and not “myth”, is at the foundation of my belief)?

So! I guess what we have to look forward too, (no matter how this election turns out), is the continuation of ignorance, war, and or genocide!

You know I wish Jesse Ventura was running in this election, because he’d get my vote, even if it was the only vote he got!

And to think that yester day I was saying that Hillary was done, but once again I was wrong, because it’s me, that’s done!

Now you all have a good day, because the way things are going, it could very well be your last!

Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Jan-2008, 11:35 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 08-Jan-2008, 11:48 AM)
I was being logical, I mean Obama claims to be Christian yet where are the signs of it in his life? I am not, nor do I claim to be a Christian, but from the things he has said and done I would question his loyalties. And as for that if he is claiming to be a Christian as a Political Smokescreen he is no different than many of the other candidates who try to use smoke and Mirrors tactics to cover the truth and make people see what the people want to see.

This is a far cry from accusing the man of being a closet Muslim and having Muslim fundamentalist leanings. Where do you get the idea that he would be having the Quran taught in schools, for example? Or is that just ill-aimed sarcasm? Please clarify.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 09-Jan-2008, 11:36 AM
Okay Boys and Girls it is STORY TIME, now take your seats and listen to an old fable and the newer version. YES, kids we have .....

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION:


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


MODERN VERSION:


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances
and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shiv ering grasshopper calls a press conference
and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well
fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home
with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp
contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and
everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house
where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.'
Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's
sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in a n interview with Larry
King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and
both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair
share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper
Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of
green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his
home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel
of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of
single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last
bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just
happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he
doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the
house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize
the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

Posted by: gwenlee 09-Jan-2008, 11:36 AM
John it is sad that you have such a pessimistic view. I don't look at the world with rose color glasses, but I do believe that we the everyday people can make change. It might not come as fast as we want it but it can happen. In this world there will always be the poor, and hungry. We can't save them all and it is not the governments job to do it. It is our job. In saying that, it is every individuals job to take control of their lives and not look for a handout from society or government. If you think that government has the answer then you are looking to the wrong group of people.

I honestly don't know has happen to our government. I guess in trying to please everyone they have gotten so off track. I think some of our problem is being a world police. I don't think our founding fathers ever intended for us to become that. Now that is not to say I favor isolationism. I don't think that we can ever do that again. But we have to realize along with the rest of the world that we the United States of America does not have have all the answers. I think it is time that we as Americans look inward rediscover what made us great, stop apologizing for all the past wrongs, stop being so politically correct and be the nation we once were.

Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Jan-2008, 11:45 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 09-Jan-2008, 12:36 PM)
Okay Boys and Girls it is STORY TIME, now take your seats and listen to an old fable and the newer version. YES, kids we have .....
. . .        [grasshopper/ant redux]

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

This is the usual oversimplified, anti-liberal, bigoted and overexaggerated social conservatism tripe -- but it's still too well-written to be yours, Druid. Care to cite your source?

I flunked a kid this term for plagiarizing less text than this. dry.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 09-Jan-2008, 12:22 PM
I never claimed to be the author it is simply a retelling of an older version of a tale that has been around for many Generations. As for your charge of
plagiarism
One entry found.

plagiarism

Main Entry:
pla·gia·rism Listen to the pronunciation of plagiarism
Pronunciation:
\ˈplā-jə-ˌri-zəm also -jē-ə-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1621

1 : an act or instance of plagiarizing 2 : something plagiarized
— pla·gia·rist Listen to the pronunciation of plagiarist \-rist\ noun
— pla·gia·ris·tic Listen to the pronunciation of plagiaristic \ˌplā-jə-ˈris-tik also -jē-ə-\ adjective
And as for your FALSE Accusation that did this let me give you the Definition of Plagerizing it is...plagiarize

Main Entry:
pla·gia·rize Listen to the pronunciation of plagiarize
Pronunciation:
\ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
pla·gia·rized; pla·gia·riz·ing
Etymology:
plagiary
Date:
1716

transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun
I stated that the story was an old one and thus not my own work, however though knowing neither the identity of the author nor the Publication it first appeared in. I in no way claimed authorship so I resent your insinuations and respectfully request you submit yourself for Remedial Classes in the usage of the English Language. The source for the above definitions is Merriam-Webster Dictionary online at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plagiarize

If you fail students for THINKING and correct use of the English Language you might consider a job asking, "Would you like to Super-size that for Twenty cents more." Oh wait the Liberalist Manifesto calls for surrender of thinking and letting the Leaders think for you. Remember this in a Communist society (Liberalist to the max) The educators are the first to be executed.

Posted by: stoirmeil 09-Jan-2008, 02:20 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 09-Jan-2008, 01:22 PM)
I never claimed to be the author it is simply a retelling of an older version of a tale that has been around for many Generations.
. . .

Remember this in a Communist society (Liberalist to the max) The educators are the first to be executed.

First -- fine. I stand corrected, somewhat, about the unknown primary source, although the "retelling" is clearly not a folk tale, but a satirical piece originally written by one person -- not many generations ago judging by the content -- and perhaps passed around anonymously by fax and then internet. But it is still clear that you did not write this so-called retelling as it stands, from memory, so where did you cut and paste it from? And it is also clearly bigoted; and whether it's yours or not, you are endorsing the wisdom of it, bigotry and all.

I might point out that you cut and pasted the definition of plagiarism wholesale, carefully citing where you got it at the end, which I commend -- but more than half the stuff is terminology you probably could not explain (i.e."inflected forms" of the verb), so it doesn't belong in your text either. There's more to quoting sources effectively than cutting and pasting and then slapping the author's name on at the end, you see.

Second -- Theoretical communism is virtually impossible to implement or sustain; however, communism as practiced is not liberal. That's what happens when you uncritically conflate "liberal" with "leftist." Communism as practiced simply goes full circle into another, more covert form of fascism.

Interesting that the final thing that comes to your mind is execution of teachers. smile.gif But you need to understand that I reward kids for original thinking and correct writing -- I only punish the ones who are too sneaky or lazy to cite their sources or write their own papers, or too out of it to realize, after ample clarification and warning, that the internet is not a free-for-all whose thought content and attribution is there for the poaching. I'm far more concerned about letting that standard go to hell on my watch than I am about being executed by mythical commies lurking under the bed.

So -- still waiting for a candidate I can fully back . . . sad.gif

Posted by: haynes9 09-Jan-2008, 10:22 PM
I'm fairly burnt out on the party thing. I've been a working Republican for years. Dad was a lifelong Democrat, but the one thing he instilled in me was to vote for the man, not the party. I have certain core principals that are sort of a "line in the sand" for me, from which I will not deviate. The candidates I support have to line up with me on those certain issues.

One thing with Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter is, live 'em or hate "em, they have a track record one can examine and they are pretty consistent. I'd just like to find someone who would follow the Constitution . . . for once!

Posted by: gwenlee 09-Jan-2008, 10:53 PM
Well said haynes. I have long considered myself a republican, but after taking a quiz turns out that I am more of a libertarian. I don't think in this time we can vote party lines. People are going to have to really look at what these folk that are running for president and know what they stand for.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 10-Jan-2008, 08:28 AM
I am and have always been a GDI "Gosh Darned Independent" (I am using the G rated version) So Party to me is something I do after the Election. But one of my Line in the Sand stands is the Constitution. Mike Huckabee wants to get rid of the IRS and since I do not find any reference to or sanction of the IRS in the Constitution I think he is on the right track. I mean lets make taxes fair and simple that will do away with H & R Block and a bunch of other overpriced (No) Accountants who take part of the refund before we even get it, and thus it will make the burden of paying for this nation equal and fair to all. Also Mike is for securing the Borders, and for putting away criminals, kill those that deserve to die for their crimes, not those that have not yet committed crimes.

Posted by: gwenlee 10-Jan-2008, 08:52 AM
For those that who want to know more about fair tax read the book by Neal Boortz. If we went to fair tax then everyone would be paying their fair share

Posted by: maisky 10-Jan-2008, 01:08 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 09-Jan-2008, 11:36 AM)


MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

Yes. If you don't vote carefully, you may wind up with another Republicant Idiot (like the current one) in the White House. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 10-Jan-2008, 01:44 PM
Genrealizing that Republicans are idiots how do you Explain Bill Clinton, or LBJ Both Democrats Clinton was focussed on Sodomy instead of the Economy, and as for Johnson he was more interested in staying in Viet nam for personal Profiteering than he was in bringing our troops home from a place we had no business being. When said troops returned they were treated to pelting with Eggs and Tomatoes a thanks from a Grateful Nation. At least the majority of Americans are honoring those that have served in the current Conflict. It might interest you to note that in Nam it was the Democrats that got us into the war and the Republicans that got us out.

Now we have a Monarch (I do not consider King George II as a Republican nor a Democrat) who in the steps of his father is trying to set up a Dynasty in the US. At least he stands for putting the guilty to death and not the innocent and unborn. However thankfully the founders set down a rule that no President can serve more than 2 terms. Hillary is trying to overturn that but the voters thus far have prevented her. If I were to think of voting for any of the Democrats it would be McCain. He is a War hero and as such I think would defend America, he is a Former P.O.W. so he knows what that is like and would try to keep our troops from that fate.

However I can not stand most of the Democrat stands, Criminals should not be coddled, Illegal Aliens should be treated as Criminals, after all a person involved in Illegal Actions is a Criminal not an Economic Resource.

Posted by: stoirmeil 10-Jan-2008, 01:45 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 10-Jan-2008, 02:08 PM)
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 09-Jan-2008, 11:36 AM)


        MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

Yes. If you don't vote carefully, you may wind up with another Republicant Idiot (like the current one) in the White House. biggrin.gif

But isn't it nice how he's going to just roll up his sleeves and clean up the Israel-Palestine problem before he goes, so the incoming Dems can forget all about the Middle East and concentrate on domestic stuff?
Damned fine of him, I say. blink.gif Wonder why nobody else ever did it.

Posted by: maisky 10-Jan-2008, 01:55 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 10-Jan-2008, 01:44 PM)
Genrealizing that Republicans are idiots how do you Explain Bill Clinton, or LBJ Both Democrats Clinton was focussed on Sodomy instead of the Economy. At least the majority of Americans are honoring those that have served in the current Conflict. It might interest you to note that in Nam it was the Democrats that got us into the war and the Republicans that got us out.

Now we have a Monarch (I do not consider King George II as a Republican nor a Democrat) who in the steps of his father is trying to set up a Dynasty in the US. At least he stands for putting the guilty to death and not the innocent and unborn. However thankfully the founders set down a rule that no President can serve more than 2 terms. Hillary is trying to overturn that but the voters thus far have prevented her. If I were to think of voting for any of the Democrats it would be McCain. He is a War hero and as such I think would defend America, he is a Former P.O.W. so he knows what that is like and would try to keep our troops from that fate.

However I can not stand most of the Democrat stands, Criminals should not be coddled, Illegal Aliens should be treated as Criminals, after all a person involved in Illegal Actions is a Criminal not an Economic Resource.

"Genrealizing that Republicans are idiots how do you Explain Bill Clinton, or LBJ Both Democrats Clinton was focussed on Sodomy instead of the Economy. At least the majority of Americans are honoring those that have served in the current Conflict. It might interest you to note that in Nam it was the Democrats that got us into the war and the Republicans that got us out."

Clinton left us with a very healthy economy and a budget surplus.

"It might interest you to note that in Nam it was the Democrats that got us into the war and the Republicans that got us out. "

It surprises me to find out that Eishenhower was a democrat. He is the one who got us into the Vietnam fiasco.

Nixon (not the republicans) got us out. He also normalised relations with China. He is the LAST Republicant president that I have any respect for. Nixon was a crook, but not an idiot. GWB is both.

GWB is the personification of the Republicant Philosophy. He and his Republicant congress looted the country in the first 4 years of his reign.

Hilary is FAR from prevented from her 8 years in office.

The rest wasnt worth commenting on. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 10-Jan-2008, 07:38 PM
JFK and LBJ were the ones that kept us in the war, and the ONLY GOOD THING NIXON did was get us out.

Further proof of Hillary being a Bill Clone is found in the following article that I am quoting with source.

(Reuters/ABC)
By KATE SNOW and
JENNIFER PARKER
Jan. 9, 2008


The woman whose empathetic question — "how do you do it?" — sparked uncharacteristic emotion Monday from Sen. Hillary Clinton ended up voting for Sen. Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary.
Video
Tears on the Campaign Trail

Marianne Pernold Young, 64, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, N.H., told ABC News that while she was moved by Clinton's emotional moment, she was turned off by how quickly the New York senator regained her "political posture." [U]

Being old enough to recall the Clinton years and the Nickname he received from the American Media "Slick Willie" I see that Hillary is just as good at acting, she knows when to turn the tears on and off. But seems not to have the genuineness of emotions found in Human Beings. I therefore join my voice to the Card Carrying Democrats that are coming behind Obama. At least his genuineness is readable. He is going to be who he is whether it is PC or not, and as for Hillary she has not the number of years in Politics to handle the task as Commander in Chief of this Nation. Until recently her Political Career was as the wife of a Politician. If you had a heart attack would you want Dr. Charles DeBakey to Operate or Mrs. Debakay? Experience matters and frankly the main "Experience" Hillary has is as a Lawyer for Leftist Groups like the Black Panthers. Her acting ability is however better than most. Perhaps she should follow Reagan and become a Movie Star then Governor of California then run for President. After all she is already an accomplished Actress as she demonstrated in NH. All she needs is an Academy Award.

Posted by: Robert Phoenix 10-Jan-2008, 10:45 PM
All I can think of now is Hillary after she is done taking the oath of office screaming out "You like Me! You really like me!"

Posted by: Dogshirt 10-Jan-2008, 11:23 PM
QUOTE
All I can think of now is Hillary after she is done taking the oath of office screaming out "You like Me! You really like me!"



puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: gwenlee 11-Jan-2008, 04:29 AM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 11-Jan-2008, 01:23 AM)


puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif


beer_mug.gif

ME TOO

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 11-Jan-2008, 09:20 AM
Hillary is aware she is unpopular with most thats why the woman in NH made her cry so easily. I applaud the woman for being the one to say to Hillary that the Emperor had NO CLOTHES! I applaud Hillary for regrouping and acting as if she cared what anyone thinks. Then Jeers to Hillary for being a Rhinestone and pretending to be a Diamond.

Posted by: gwenlee 11-Jan-2008, 09:32 AM
All of us know that the tear were part of a ploy to get votes. It is sad that people saw the tears crybaby.gif as tears of concern for our country instead of her concern that her coronation won't happen king.gif

See she pulled a gender card crying have you seen any man do that? If they are gong to cry do it in private. We don't need a cry baby leadership. BACK TO THE KITCHEN HILLARY.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 11-Jan-2008, 10:58 AM
Ah, I am shocked. Gwenlee, how can you say that! Hillary using Feminine ways to garner sympathy? No, say it ain't so! ROFLOL! Hey Hillary needs to "Get Real" and just say she wants to be the Empress and let the chips fall where they will. She believes she knows best for all of us. Move over Robert Young!

Posted by: maisky 11-Jan-2008, 01:49 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 10-Jan-2008, 11:23 PM)


puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif puke.gif


beer_mug.gif

ROFL! Go Hillary!

Posted by: John Clements 12-Jan-2008, 08:45 AM
If Ralph Nader, were to throw his hat into the ring, and I were asked to come up with an advertising strategy for him, I would suggest that he do the following Ad concept:

(The Ad would have a photo of him, with a bold headline in all caps…that said)…

I TOLD YOU SO!

(Along with a sub head that said)…

I’m Ralph Nader. I’m running for president, I approve this Ad, and in the event that a vote for me, means that a republican wins. Then I suggest that you vote for John Edwards.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 12-Jan-2008, 02:28 PM
Partisian Politics is dangerous, reason being, if 2 people think exactly alike one of them has stopped thinking.

Posted by: gwenlee 15-Jan-2008, 08:12 AM
The primaries go on

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 15-Jan-2008, 08:41 AM
And on, and on!

Posted by: John Clements 15-Jan-2008, 08:48 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 12-Jan-2008, 03:28 PM)
Partisian Politics is dangerous, reason being, if 2 people think exactly alike one of them has stopped thinking.

No two people "ever", think alike.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 15-Jan-2008, 09:37 AM
By Definition a Democrat is one that Subscribes to the tenets of the Democratic Party, a Republican is one that Subscribes to the Tenets of the Republican Party.

Now let me further elaborate the point by showing the subtle nature of that. The Democratic Party is "Pro-Choice" and the Republican Party calls itself "Pro-Life", it seems to me that the Democrats are actually Pro-Abortion, while the Republcians are Anti_Abortion. You see the choice is made when a woman and a man get together and have sex. It is interesting that the Democrats say it is not a baby until you can hold it in your hands. If that is the case a brain is not a brain until you hold it in your hands, thus no one has a brain. I find it interesting in the Pro-Choice camp that they believe killing innocent babies is acceptable while letting murderers, rapist, and kidnappers get to live long lives in prison at taxpayer expense is mandatory, since the Criminals are just acting out against society, and should be taken care of by that society. In the Celtic World they put the ones that did not live by society standards away, but they did not put them in prisons and feed them for the rest of their lives, and give them free medical care! Man the Democrats need to quit twisting terms They are not "Pro-Life" but are pro Crime. Letting criminals live and unborn babies who are "inconvenient" be simply MURDERED!

Now as for the "Pro-Life" Republicans, they are indeed Anti-Abortion, but the Republicans seem to feel it is the Duty of the US to be the defenders of the whole world, so they send our military into places that have done nothing to us in order to enfroce the will of the US on the people of these lands. Perhaps they feel that the reason to be Pro life is that it gives them more pawns to lose in future wars. I have the better soplution for the problem that is a middle of the line approach and thus should be acceptable to Democrats and Republicans. I am Pro-Life, but when someone commits crimes to horrendous to be left in society they should be forced into military service and sent out of the country to fight until they are too old to be a danger, if they live that long they may return to the Country and be taken care of for the last years of their life.

OKAY THATS MY PLATFORM VOTE FOR ME AS A WRITE IN FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Jan-2008, 11:29 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 15-Jan-2008, 10:37 AM)
I am Pro-Life, but when someone commits crimes to horrendous to be left in society they should be forced into military service and sent out of the country to fight until they are too old to be a danger, if they live that long they may return to the Country and be taken care of for the last years of their life.


This doesn't strike me as a particularly pro-life position. First of all, you propose to send an incorrigible sociopath to the front lines of war with the thinly disguised hope that he'll get killed, which is kind of a lazy and haphazard form of death sentence in which you make unauthorized use of someone else's intentions and ammunition. Of course, if your incorrigible is merely badly damaged, you will ship him back and take care of him indefinitely anyway, for at least the expense of a prison sentence, and probably a lot more, if it's done right. A little loose in the planning, and especially a wildcard for budgeting, I should say. Then, what's really not pro-life is that you will turn this incorrigible sociopath-turned-soldier loose in a foreign country with a high-tech weapon in his hand and various other ordinance at his disposal, which you provide him with and train him to use, to practice his incorrigible impulses of rape, murder, and assorted other terrors of violence on a non-combattant population of women, children, old people, under the pretext of subduing our "enemy". Tell me that doesn't happen even when the guilty soldier goes in with no criminal record at all. Haven't we had enough trouble with the small but disproportionately destructive sociopathic element that makes it into the honorable ranks of the armed forces, to our shame?

Posted by: John Clements 15-Jan-2008, 02:31 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 15-Jan-2008, 12:29 PM)
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 15-Jan-2008, 10:37 AM)
I am Pro-Life, but when someone commits crimes to horrendous to be left in society they should be forced into military service and sent out of the country to fight until they are too old to be a danger, if they live that long they may return to the Country and be taken care of for the last years of their life.


This doesn't strike me as a particularly pro-life position. First of all, you propose to send an incorrigible sociopath to the front lines of war with the thinly disguised hope that he'll get killed, which is kind of a lazy and haphazard form of death sentence in which you make unauthorized use of someone else's intentions and ammunition. Of course, if your incorrigible is merely badly damaged, you will ship him back and take care of him indefinitely anyway, for at least the expense of a prison sentence, and probably a lot more, if it's done right. A little loose in the planning, and especially a wildcard for budgeting, I should say. Then, what's really not pro-life is that you will turn this incorrigible sociopath-turned-soldier loose in a foreign country with a high-tech weapon in his hand and various other ordinance at his disposal, which you provide him with and train him to use, to practice his incorrigible impulses of rape, murder, and assorted other terrors of violence on a non-combattant population of women, children, old people, under the pretext of subduing our "enemy". Tell me that doesn't happen even when the guilty soldier goes in with no criminal record at all. Haven't we had enough trouble with the small but disproportionately destructive sociopathic element that makes it into the honorable ranks of the armed forces, to our shame?

That’s why I like you stoirmeil, (even though I am prochoice). But let me ask you. What are we going to do about those millions upon millions of people, who are so poor, that the only joy they get out of life is having sex?
Hey here’s an idea, how about being...pro-contraception… instead? (Let’s face it)! We’re breeding ourselves out of existence!
Just to keep this on track, there is a lot of scuttlebutt, that Kucinich could get a win in Michigan? (Since he is on the ballot)! Hey! If that happens, I might not “close” on that house in Costa Rica?

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 15-Jan-2008, 02:47 PM
If they are too poor to support a family they an opt for Contraception either temporary measures or Permanent. If they do not they are not contributing to society but are a burden to said Society. As for sending the Criminals to war it seems to me that that is a good option as it gives them a fair chance to be remembered as heroes instead of as Criminals. I mean, look at it this way. Ever heard of Jeff Dohmer? Sure you have he is a cannibal which is against the moors of society, however instead of locking him up and forcing him to eat things he would chose not to lets send him to Iraq, hey it would not take long for the Muslims to decide they have not got the stomach for fighting a guy that would kill and eat them!

Or how about Charlie Manson, he could singlehandedly turn the Muslims around and have them killing their own kind. After all he used his Criminal mind to become a Cult-hero. Now we the Taxpayers are forced to keep these ANIMALS alive and get no return, that is a BAD INVESTMENT in my books. And before you say that it would be against their rights, what about the rights of their VICTIMS you think they care about the rights of others...NO so I say they should have the same respect they showed their victims. BTW in case you are wondering yes I have been the victim of Violent crime in the past and seen the Criminals coddled, not just on one occasion. So you would be right to conclude that I am tired of hearing about the rights of the HUMAN PREDATORS. If they want to be predators send them after other predators.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 15-Jan-2008, 06:46 PM
I say the laws on the books need to be enforced the way they were meant to be and the right people need to be put in jail. What do I mean by that? It seems to me that law enforcement will always take the path of least resistance instead of taking care of what the general public expects of them. Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% for law enforcement. My very best friend is a Cop. Be he himself as well as many others will tell you that it's very true what I just said. Now I don't think that it's the total solution to the problems we face with crime however, I do believe it would be part of the solution.

Now what does all this have to do with Presidential candidates? unsure.gif I don't know either laugh.gif

Posted by: thecelticgiraffe 16-Jan-2008, 05:04 AM
Getting back to Presidential hopefuls....I see no good Rep. or Dem. candidates so far. I don't know what it is about the people running this year, but they all seem like their only real goal is to say what they need to say to get into office. I know that sounds typical and rather simplistic. but I get a stronger than ever feeling that there is little sense listening to what their campaigning on because there is no way to tell if they really believe in any of it themselves.

If I vote at all it will be probably libertarian or some other party. And DO NOT think a person is wasting their vote if they don't vote Dem. or Rep. It is stupid to think that! You must vote for the best person...NOT simply a Dem. or Rep. Remember, the President has very limited powers. Congress controls 85% of what goes on, NOT the President! And 90% of politics is about who has the money...and don't think it isn't! So no matter what a campaigner is saying, they may not or will not do any of it once in office!!!

All Presidential candidates are human, and usually egotistical ones! This means they are interested in power probably more than a sincere desire to help fellow humans. My personal opinion is that there should be no salary for the President or Congressmen, only covered expenses. This may not account for much, but it would at least demonstrate that the position is for serving people.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 16-Jan-2008, 08:44 AM
If I vote at all it will be probably libertarian or some other party. And DO NOT think a person is wasting their vote if they don't vote Dem. or Rep. It is stupid to think that! You must vote for the best person...NOT simply a Dem. or Rep. Remember, the President has very limited powers. Congress controls 85% of what goes on, NOT the President! And 90% of politics is about who has the money...and don't think it isn't! So no matter what a campaigner is saying, they may not or will not do any of it once in office!!!

I quite agree that the Party is not important except for the fact that the sayin is true "Birds of a Feather flock together" One that is of a Party is affirming their loyalty to at least the basic tenets of that party. But then I believe as you that the President is in essence a figurehead with limited powers. Remember the government is set up in a 3 part system, Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branches (see Mrs. Thomas I was listening in Civics Class) and all 3 branches have power and have to a degree power to balance the other 2 branches. Government is set up that way for reason.

Posted by: John Clements 16-Jan-2008, 09:42 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 15-Jan-2008, 03:47 PM)
If they are too poor to support a family they an opt for Contraception either temporary measures or Permanent. If they do not they are not contributing to society but are a burden to said Society.

First of all! Is that you Druid of Ark? I didn’t recognize you without the looks a lot like Moses photo?
Second of all! Give me a brake, that response to my comment is a given!
And third of all, but not least! (That is at least for today anyway).What do you think about your candidate Huckabee now, that he wanting to amend the constitution to include more God stuff?
Oh yes! He a candidate all right! A candidate for the “Funny Farm”! (At least as far as I’m concerned)!

Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Jan-2008, 10:24 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 15-Jan-2008, 03:47 PM)
Ever heard of Jeff Dohmer? Sure you have he is a cannibal which is against the moors of society, however instead of locking him up and forcing him to eat things he would chose not to lets send him to Iraq, hey it would not take long for the Muslims to decide they have not got the stomach for fighting a guy that would kill and eat them!


Wow. wacko.gif

Keep it coming -- there are people who get paid to put out this kind of stuff. Most of them are on strike at the moment -- but if you're willing to be a scab you could probably write for Leno or Colbert for a while. (Who are the "moors of society," anyway? Is that another quaint Islamic slam?)


Well - SO! what is the hysteria du jour? This is a death-and-resurrection-based election campaign for sure, conservative or liberal. Now McCain is dead and Romney is alive again.

I think it's going to take more than the attention span of a young fly to suss this one, but the media aren't even doing that well. I'm turning off all information input until the weekend to read some good books, which are cheaper to produce and last longer, and see if anything definitive has happened by then.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 16-Jan-2008, 10:43 AM
Okay well as for the god stuff in the Constitution, this country was founded on a concept of God, albeit I believe it should be god/goddess. As for the change of pic I decided to retire the Merlin photo and use the Clan Crest though I am still a follower of Druidism, active in the Local Grove and Several National/International Druid Groups. I would rather the Nation have some form of values than to have it be a nation that believes killing babies is okay while killing killers is WRONG! I believe in the adage, "What you put out whether good or bad will come back to you three-fold. I think I might have applauded Abortion rights people if they had been Hillary's Parents! I mean the ones that are Pro-Abortion need to shut up and think, if their parents had had the option would they be here? Think about that next time you hit the ballot ofr some candidae for Murder of Babies!

As for me being a writer for Leno, I am not sure what that is about. I presume he is on TV and I do not own a TV (though several have offered to give me one, I see no need for one). So would not be qualified to write for those on that mind rotting medium. Sorry but the vast majority of "entertainment" on Television these days is about as valuable as a 25 gallon bucket of garbage. I have heard the term Idiot Box used for Television and though I do not know who started that nickname for the medium it seems appropriate.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 16-Jan-2008, 10:57 AM
I just saw a banner by NewsMax.com with a poll titled "Is Hillary Finished?" Interestingly most believe she is! I took the pole just to see what percentage said yes and what said no. BTW I voted the Affirmative. America needs a strong Moral Leader not some crybaby that is self serving and so full of herself that she thinks hers are the only right answers for the entire world.

Posted by: gwenlee 16-Jan-2008, 11:20 AM
What was the love feast the democrat had all about? I'm okay you are okay you are right, I am right. Lets all kiss. Everyone watch out Hillarys claws will get you when you least expect.

Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Jan-2008, 11:55 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 16-Jan-2008, 11:57 AM)
. . .  so full of herself that she thinks hers are the only right answers for the entire world.

How interesting. This is exactly what non-Americans say about our current conservative regime and its foreign affairs, or should I say intrusions and invasions.

The "love feast" was, I believe, corrective, or at least a breather for the time being, on ill will. And of course it has to do with appearances as well as the genuine content of the party programs. (With the public eye constantly trained on innumerable repeats of every word and facial expression, it's largely about appearances, rightly or wrongly.) But when one of them is finally chosen to run, the others have to get in behind that one and push. I think it is easier for the stuffed conservative suits to do the slick insults and then glad-hand the winner, because they're all the same anyway: white, male and conservative, and that kind of behavior is more acceptable and understood as being election-temporary. No harm done, best man wins, yuck yuck yuck on all the previous insults and innuendo. Hillary and Obama, in any case, have their race and gender differences right out front, and that acrimony about those issues is a none too pretty part of our national history. So it does need some controls on it, and the party knows it.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 16-Jan-2008, 12:03 PM
NOTE: I am not nor have I ever been a supporter of King Bush I or II. However having said that I will say that again to think that I am would be to have either not read, or not comprehended my statement that it is the man, not the Party that I support when I support Mike Huckabee, and it seems a lot of others are coming around, so if Arkansas has another person in the White House it will Be Mike not Hillary. Hey if you combine the names of Hillary and her husband what do you get?...HILLBILLY! Blessed Be, and remember only 17 days til the feast of Brigid. Saint of the Christian Church but Goddess before that.

Posted by: gtrplr 16-Jan-2008, 05:48 PM
Some jokes and other stuff overheard around work in the last few days:

This country needs change and Hillary is the right man for the job.

Jeff Gordon (NASCAR driver) is backing Obama for President. Hillary Clinton has accused him of playing the race card.

I don't like political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.

We need Mike Huckabee like a hog needs a sidesaddle.

Are you a Republican or a Democrat?
Neither. I'm a Capricorn.

Nuke the Republicans.

If Hillary wins, maybe we'll get lucky and she'll have PMS during the next terrorist attack.

John Edwards? Tell him to go get a haircut and shut the f--- up.


I don't write 'em folks, I just report 'em.

Ron Paul for President.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 16-Jan-2008, 06:07 PM
Did you hear about the guy that had a box of Puppies for sale? The sign said "Democrat Puppies $1.00 each". A few weeks later the same guy had the same Puppies but a different sign, it read "Republican Puppies $10.00 each." Well a guy asked "Aren't those the same puppies you had a few weeks ago as Democrat Puppies for $1.00 each?" The man replied, " Yeah. but now they have their eyes open."

Posted by: John Clements 16-Jan-2008, 11:42 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 16-Jan-2008, 11:43 AM)
I think I might have applauded Abortion rights people if they had been Hillary's Parents! I mean the ones that are Pro-Abortion need to shut up and think, if their parents had had the option would they be here?

I could be totally wrong, but I don’t think that god is even mentioned in the constitution, unless of course you’re talking about “the separation of church and state” (which in my opinion is paramount to this country existence).
And let me make it clear to you, Merlin! I don’t take kindly to being told to “shut up” especially by the likes of you!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Jan-2008, 09:08 AM
I was not refering to you specifically thus I am sorry you think I was, however the adage "Guilty dogs bark loudest" comes to mind...Have you read the Jeffersonian Papers (of Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Constitution)? They are full of references to God and if memory serves me correct the passage you quote has more to do with keeping Government from interfering with the FREE EXPRESSION of Religion. That has been sadly lost because of Liberal interpertation of the Law. I am not a Christian but if a Christian prayer is offered at a Public event I am not offended, I simply use that time to offer thanks to one of the gods or Goddesses of my Path. Hey if you want to take God out of the Public then how about goiing to work on Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter. I mean if you dont want to cater to a God why not declare those just another day. Besides there is justification for that since the Christians use December 25, despite the evidence that Jesus was not born in the winter, that is in fact tied more to the Celtic/Pagan Yule Feast, so you see the Christians are acomodating. For that reason I am willing to acomodate them. I have never heard a Christian say we are going to pray and you have to pray THIS PRAYER. If I did I would be outraged! But there is nothing wrong with the concept of Prayer...by now you may be saying what about the Atheists? Well they can use the "prayer time" to think about where they are going to eat after the game, or whatever Atheist think about...or they can consider Paschal's Gambit and try to arrive at an answer for it. I will not even pretend that I think you are unaware of Paschal's Gambit since you are from your posts a learned man. Have you solved it yet?

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 09:32 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 16-Jan-2008, 01:03 PM)
Hey if you combine the names of Hillary and her husband what do you get?...HILLBILLY!

Hillbilly! That’s funny and I agree with it, but it’s not any funnier then Huckleberry!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Jan-2008, 09:42 AM
Ah true but to come up with Huckleberry you have to add a lot, and that is not usually the Democrat way they usually try to take away not add. For example they tried to shift the emphasis from the harm Bill did to the country by haqving the morals of an Alley Cat, and give him a trumped up image as a great balancer of the Economy. And as for JFK they tried to hide his extra-marital affairs, by touting him as a Hero in WW2. I am not saying JFK was not a hero but he was a Womanizer. hey maybe thats why the Democrats are Pro-Abortion, they can cover their tracks easier!

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 10:15 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 17-Jan-2008, 10:08 AM)
I was not refering to you specifically thus I am sorry you think I was, however the adage "Guilty dogs bark loudest" comes to mind...Have you read the Jeffersonian Papers (of Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Constitution)? They are full of references to God and if memory serves me correct the passage you quote has more to do with keeping Government from interfering with the FREE EXPRESSION of Religion. That has been sadly lost because of Liberal interpertation of the Law. I am not a Christian but if a Christian prayer is offered at a Public event I am not offended, I simply use that time to offer thanks to one of the gods or Goddesses of my Path. Hey if you want to take God out of the Public then how about goiing to work on Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter. I mean if you dont want to cater to a God why not declare those just another day. Besides there is justification for that since the Christians use December 25, despite the evidence that Jesus was not born in the winter, that is in fact tied more to the Celtic/Pagan Yule Feast, so you see the Christians are acomodating. For that reason I am willing to acomodate them. I have never heard a Christian say we are going to pray and you have to pray THIS PRAYER. If I did I would be outraged! But there is nothing wrong with the concept of Prayer...by now you may be saying what about the Atheists? Well they can use the "prayer time" to think about where they are going to eat after the game, or whatever Atheist think about...or they can consider Paschal's Gambit and try to arrive at an answer for it. I will not even pretend that I think you are unaware of Paschal's Gambit since you are from your posts a learned man. Have you solved it yet?

You know there is a thread somewhere here on CR. That asks what religion you are. My answer was that I haven’t decided yet. Although I must admit I do have an affinity for nature, (as in being one with the natural world). As for Pascal’s Gamble, I just read up on it, and although I don’t usually gamble, I’ll take that bet! (As to address the rest of your post, I’ll have to get back to you on it).

Just to stay on topic: John Edwards is no Dennis Kucinich, but he’s expectable.

Posted by: stoirmeil 17-Jan-2008, 11:13 AM
Woohoooooo! Pascal's wager! Now that brings me back . . . late nights in the dorm room with the peace sign poster under black lights, with a gallon of cheap chianti or sangria . . .

Look -- just to be the devil's advocate in a really immediate way -- here is a bit from a website that really is amusing and something to think about:


The first problem lies in defining "True Religion" and "True God" which Pascals' implicit yet unstated assumption votes for Roman Catholicism. It is interesting to note the fact that he used it as an argument for being a part of the Catholic doctrine, but it is nevertheless used so often today by Protestants, Islamists, Buddhists, Hindus-all, without recognizing the inherent fallacy of the argument. The argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed "...go to heaven and avoid hell." However, if you choose the wrong religion, you will by no means be able to avoid hell.

Unfortunately, most Believers are like Pascal and others simply assume that their own religion is the right one, so it never occurs to them that they could be avoiding the wrong hell. Pointing them from this angle sometimes makes them stop and think, but it has been experienced that they usually deny that the problem exists because they firmly believe that the "right God" is "obvious" for all to see. It should be clear from such statements that there are none as blind as those who won't see. There are hundreds of religion in the market all dogmatically claiming as the true candidate of God; never mind what self-contradictory, unscientific strange beliefs they hold.
. . .

Now, some religions like Judo-Christianity and Islam are based on Monotheism; thus those thrust the devoted followers believing in One God but Hindus, on the contrary, believe in thousands of god and goddess. Muslims generally consider idol-worship as a great sin (shirak) whereas Hindus perform that ritual as a fundamental part of the religion They consider the idol is a support for the neophyte. Muslims slaughter cows in their religious festival whereas Hindus worship cows just as holy deities. Hinduism, even having many self-contradictory bizarre beliefs within, also proclaims that it is a true religion just as Islam or Christianity demand:

"Sho-dhormo Nidhonong Sreyo, Poro dhormo Bhoyaboho"

(It is better to die in own religion, other religions are just horrendous)

So if, by any chance, Hindu God is the true god, then all the Muslim brothers, with no offence, will be pushed to hellfire on the judgment of the voluminous track records of slaughtering cows in their religious festivals. Thus, it can be easily comprehend that many devoted believers and god-loving people will go to hell not because they are Atheists but because of their unfortunate devotion in wrong God. This clearly depicts the vagueness of Pascal's Wager.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/pascal_wager.htm



JC my man, what do you mean by: "John Edwards is no Dennis Kucinich, but he’s expectable"? It sounds like it should make sense, but I'm not quite catching it. Do you mean "electable"?

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Jan-2008, 11:22 AM
Well I used Paschal in my example however please note that many religions (Druidism among them) do not believe in a "Hell" Thus to me Druidism is not a "GET OUT OF HELL FREE" card but a way to connect with the power of the Universe.

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 12:51 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 17-Jan-2008, 12:22 PM)
Well I used Paschal in my example however please note that many religions (Druidism among them) do not believe in a "Hell" Thus to me Druidism is not a "GET OUT OF HELL FREE" card but a way to connect with the power of the Universe.

You know I don't like being threatened, by anyone, and that includes God, (which is why I’ve gone off religion in the first place. Besides it always sounded like extortion to me)! So, your post sounds good to me.
Anyway, it’s time to take a nap, so talk on you all later,
JC

Posted by: John Clements 17-Jan-2008, 01:57 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 17-Jan-2008, 12:13 PM)
Woohoooooo! Pascal's wager! Now that brings me back . . . late nights in the dorm room with the peace sign poster under black lights, with a gallon of cheap chianti or sangria . . .

Look -- just to be the devil's advocate in a really immediate way -- here is a bit from a website that really is amusing and something to think about:


The first problem lies in defining "True Religion" and "True God" which Pascals' implicit yet unstated assumption votes for Roman Catholicism. It is interesting to note the fact that he used it as an argument for being a part of the Catholic doctrine, but it is nevertheless used so often today by Protestants, Islamists, Buddhists, Hindus-all, without recognizing the inherent fallacy of the argument. The argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed "...go to heaven and avoid hell." However, if you choose the wrong religion, you will by no means be able to avoid hell.

Unfortunately, most Believers are like Pascal and others simply assume that their own religion is the right one, so it never occurs to them that they could be avoiding the wrong hell. Pointing them from this angle sometimes makes them stop and think, but it has been experienced that they usually deny that the problem exists because they firmly believe that the "right God" is "obvious" for all to see. It should be clear from such statements that there are none as blind as those who won't see. There are hundreds of religion in the market all dogmatically claiming as the true candidate of God; never mind what self-contradictory, unscientific strange beliefs they hold.
. . .

Now, some religions like Judo-Christianity and Islam are based on Monotheism; thus those thrust the devoted followers believing in One God but Hindus, on the contrary, believe in thousands of god and goddess. Muslims generally consider idol-worship as a great sin (shirak) whereas Hindus perform that ritual as a fundamental part of the religion They consider the idol is a support for the neophyte. Muslims slaughter cows in their religious festival whereas Hindus worship cows just as holy deities. Hinduism, even having many self-contradictory bizarre beliefs within, also proclaims that it is a true religion just as Islam or Christianity demand:

"Sho-dhormo Nidhonong Sreyo, Poro dhormo Bhoyaboho"

(It is better to die in own religion, other religions are just horrendous)

So if, by any chance, Hindu God is the true god, then all the Muslim brothers, with no offence, will be pushed to hellfire on the judgment of the voluminous track records of slaughtering cows in their religious festivals. Thus, it can be easily comprehend that many devoted believers and god-loving people will go to hell not because they are Atheists but because of their unfortunate devotion in wrong God. This clearly depicts the vagueness of Pascal's Wager.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/avijit/pascal_wager.htm



JC my man, what do you mean by: "John Edwards is no Dennis Kucinich, but he’s expectable"? It sounds like it should make sense, but I'm not quite catching it. Do you mean "electable"?

Dam, stoirmeil, you always give me so much to read, (don’t you know I’m a remedial reader. In fact when I was a kid the word “Dylex” didn’t exist. So they just said I was slow)! But anyway, I’ll get back to you in a couple of day, when I get through reading this stuff.
OH yes! My original choice of candidates is as follows: Kucinich, Edwards and Obama, so I’m still hoping for the best, even though the corporate media has decided for us by ignoring Kucinich! What a joke!
Late,
JC

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Jan-2008, 02:05 PM
John raises a valid point it is really the media that control things, they do not really report the news, they create it. They also see that the public hears exactly what they want us to hear about each candidate then they further corrupt the prosess by getting their "Golden Candidate" against a far inferior candidate and the people swallow it! (How else do you explain the lame candidates they tossed against Bush)!

Posted by: gwenlee 18-Jan-2008, 07:45 AM
Mit Romney took my orginal comment, if you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch. He must be reading our post. Do you think? HA!.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 18-Jan-2008, 08:43 AM
Indeed Mit may have read the handwriting on the wall, or on the Internet and determined that he had no chance to survive so he retreated to perahps fight another day...Wonder if he has heard the Prophesies about the year 2012?

Posted by: maisky 18-Jan-2008, 09:14 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 16-Jan-2008, 10:57 AM)
  some crybaby that is self serving and so full of herself that she thinks hers are the only right answers for the entire world.

wow! That is the perfect description of GWB! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: gwenlee 18-Jan-2008, 09:43 AM
Personally I think all politician are full of themselves why else would they be in politics?

Posted by: Camac 30-Jan-2008, 02:08 PM
30/01/08

I don't much care who becomes your president as I'm not an American. If I were though I think it should be Oprah after all she is a Woman, she is Black and a Democrat and with all her money she could buy the office.

Camac.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 30-Jan-2008, 02:51 PM
Oprah For President...ok again let me point out that Whppoi Goldberg has all the accomplishments of Oprah except the money and on top of that could secure the Jewish vote. And no Jew would allow the Arabs to attack again. Look at the history of Israel every time the Muslims attack Israel the IDF beats them and gains more land for Israel. That should give the US the right way to deal. We go in and beat the Muslims and Declare Iraq the fifty first state.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jan-2008, 10:20 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 30-Jan-2008, 03:51 PM)
Look at the history of Israel every time the Muslims attack Israel the IDF beats them and gains more land for Israel. That should give the US the right way to deal. We go in and beat the Muslims and Declare Iraq the fifty first state.

This reminds me of that great old joke from the Moshe Dayan era -- Israel is broke and is trying to come up with a plan to raise money. One of the old generals proposes declaring war on the United States. The others look at him like he's nuts. "No, listen," he says. "We go to war against them, they beat us in a few weeks, and then they spend a load of money on us to rebuild, like they did on Germany!"

Dayan answers pessimistically: "Great. What it we win?"

What is it with you and Whoopi Goldberg, Druid? Mind you, I think the woman is marvellous -- so much so that I would never wish the curse of presidency on her. smile.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 31-Jan-2008, 10:50 AM
Whoopi Goldberg is Black (would pull the black vote), she is a woman (without the baggage of Hillary Clinton), and Jewish (the Jewish vote would go her way), she is an Actress (the Last Hollywooder to get in office did pretty well), also please note that in comparison of her and Ronald Reagan, both of them had acted in movies that had to do with the Presidency, Ron in "Bonzo Goes To Washington" and Whoopi in "Jumpin' Jack Flash". And as for the real reason I would support Whoopi over Clinton is that Clinton is a liar a fake and about as sincere as a crocodile's tears. She has admitted that she knew about Bill's affairs, but how could she not he propositioned women openly here in Arkansas. But she stayed with him, and tried to cover his actions up. Not for his sake but to give her a shot at the vote from the Liberals with their "Oh look at POOR HILLARY and all she has suffered we should let her run the country and make up to her for all Bill put her through. Sorry but you see I am not really Pro-Whoopi, I have tried to present the obvious Ludicrous nature of voting based on Gendre, Race, Religion, or anything of the type. Vote based on the persons record. And quite honestly if Hillary were running Unopposed I would submit a blank ballot! Based purely on her record (which is lacking, as a Junior Senator has so little power that they are kind of like a Kindergarten Student in a College Debate team. Nothing to do but sit there and Co-sponsor Bills until they have seniority to be taken seriously.

As for Jewsih humor, Did you hear the comment by Dayan, when asked if Adolph Eichmann would receive Justice in Israel? He replied "No, you can not hang a man six million times." Point being that Dayan was a man of quick intellect, sharp humour and an understanding of things as they are.

Posted by: stoirmeil 31-Jan-2008, 12:40 PM
What exactly does "She's a woman, but without the baggage of Hillary" mean? dry.gif

Posted by: John Clements 31-Jan-2008, 01:00 PM
What Counts as an "Issue" In the Clinton-Obama Race?
Posted January 30, 2008 | 09:20 PM (EST) By Professor George Lakoff


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Caroline Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy Endorses Obama, Hillary Clinton, NYT Endorses Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Breaking Politics News



Political endorsements rarely make interesting reading. But this year is different. Take the endorsements of Hillary Clinton by the New York Times [NY Times, January 25, 2008] and Barack Obama by Caroline Kennedy [NY Times, January 27, 2008].

Email
Print
Comment
To the editors of the New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on policy goals:

"On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove."
What matters to the editors is experience in "tackling ... issues" -- in mastering details of policy and carrying them out one by one. "The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work."

To Caroline Kennedy, policy is not the real issue:

"Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates' goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."


The difference is striking. To the editors of the New York Times, the quality of leadership seems not to be an "issue." The ability to unite the country is not an "issue." What Obama calls the empathy deficit -- attunement to the experience and needs of real people -- is not an "issue." Honesty is not an "issue." Trust is not an "issue." Moral judgment is not an "issue." Values are not "issues." Adherence to democratic ideals -- rather than political positioning, triangulation, and incrementalism -- are not "issues." Inspiration, a call to a higher purpose, and a transcendence of interest-based politics are not "issues."

It is time to understand what counts as an "issue," to whom, and why.

In Thinking Points, the handbook for progressives that the Rockridge Institute staff and I wrote last year, we began by analyzing Ronald Reagan's strengths as a politician. According to his chief strategist, Richard Wirthlin, Reagan realized that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on (1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity. That is, Reagan spoke about his values, and policies for him just exemplified values. He connected viscerally with people. He was perceived as authentic, as really believing what he said. As a result, people trusted him and identified with him. Even if they had different positions on issues, they knew where he stood. Even when his economic policies did not produce a "Morning in America," voters still felt a connection to him because he spoke to what they wanted America to be. That was what allowed Reagan to gain the votes of so many independents and Democrats.

There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision. His vision was a radical conservative one, a vision devastating for the country and contradicted by his economic policies.

Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer.

The Clintonian policy wonks don't seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan's political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust.

So do the pundits who pose the questions in the debates.

This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major "issues" dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama's thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.

It is time for the press, the pundits, the pollsters, and the political scientists to take these issues seriously.

George Lakoff is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant!


Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 31-Jan-2008, 04:01 PM
Hillary proved by conduct here in Arkansas and in Washington D.C. that she is in the same league of liars and cheat as the current Administration. She lied to the public about things her husband was doing and whether or not she knew about the affairs. But then tried to use his unfaithfulness to her as a pity plea. Well some of the Bleeding hearts may think the character of the person is not important. But I am a man that has integrity and if the President is to represent me I expect the same from him/her. Hillary is lacking in personal integrity, and in strength to be a leader. Besides she has her Albatross out campaigning for her. That makes me wonder if in fact he would be running the show in her term if elected. Unless I find sufficient evidence that he would not I would consider a vote for her as a vote to return Clinton to Office. We already had a 4 term President and it was decided that it should not happen again. As for the run between her and Obama, that is funny since in the US we have a two party System, and I do not think either of the top runners for the Democrats would make a good President, because the Democrats platform is unappealing to me. I am not totally sold on the Republicans but of all the current Options I will stand behind Mike Huckabee, I have met him and am impresses with him. I would vote for him if he were to be defeated as the Republican Choice and ran independent! He believes in America, and so do I. Not the America that allows the "Undocumented workers" to get a free lunch. One where each person receives dignity in proportion to their being a part of society and joining together to restore this once great Nation. My primary alliance is Clan Cathcart but I am also connected through my Fathers father to the Clan McLain whose motto fits me quite well "Honour is my Virtue". One with no Honour is not worthy to lead. I would like to have a President I can be proud of and neither Hillary or Obama meet that criteria in m y books.

Posted by: John Clements 31-Jan-2008, 04:23 PM
We have a big decision to make. Yesterday, John Edwards left the race for president, leaving just two major Democratic candidates. And next Tuesday, over half of MoveOn's members will go to the polls in the biggest primary day in American history.

Right now, we have an opportunity to influence who our next president is—3.2 million MoveOn members together. When we surveyed over 200,000 MoveOn members yesterday to see if we should go forward with an endorsement process, a big majority said "yes."

So it's time to ask the question: Who should MoveOn endorse in the Democratic primary? If two-thirds of MoveOn members support one candidate, we'll campaign for that candidate together. Here's your ballot—vote today:

http://pol.moveon.org/2008/prezendorse/?id=12007-5018548-qQ_yNo&t=343

Posted by: gwenlee 04-Feb-2008, 08:01 AM
SUPER TUESDAY IS UPON US. Regardless of which political party you associate with or what you think of the government. If you are a US citizen get out and vote. If you don't vote you have no right to complain.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 04-Feb-2008, 09:50 PM
That is so true Gwen

Posted by: haynes9 04-Feb-2008, 11:15 PM
So many people have given up on voting. Not good, IMHO. I'll be working in the polls here on the Reservation. Just a little civic duty and a way to be a help to our good folks out here. We have over a foot of snow to deal with, but such is life.

For what it's worth, I'll be casting my vote for Ron Paul. I think it's time someone paid real attention to the Constitution.

Have a great Super Tuesday, Everyone!

Posted by: valpal 59 05-Feb-2008, 09:48 AM
QUOTE (haynes9 @ 04-Feb-2008, 11:15 PM)


For what it's worth, I'll be casting my vote for Ron Paul. I think it's time someone paid real attention to the Constitution.


I'm ashamed to say that up until this year I have buried my head in the sand. The political process seems way to complicated to me. I always believed that it didn't matter who you voted for, the higher ups are going to put into office who they want. I still believe that to an extent. The media seems to focus on a certain few and that doesn't seem right to me either. Every candidate should get equal time no matter how much money they have. It would also be nice to see the candidates quit acting like little kids bickering with each other and actually answer a question.

I have been searching the internet this year to see how all of the candidates stand on the issues. I agree with Haynes9, I will be voting for Ron Paul. He seems like the only one that has common sense and actually cares about this country.

I will now leave this topic to people who are way smarter than I am, I just felt the need to get how I felt out.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 05-Feb-2008, 11:21 AM
ValPal, Your comment that you would leave the topic to people "Smarter than you" is interesting, one candidate is so sure she is smarter than the average voter that she wants everyone to leave the thinking to her. Despite th fact that she has a history of hiding or distorting the truth to suit her. And many of her followers think the race is between her and Obama, forgetting that not all in the Nation support the Democrats in the stand that a baby can be murdered a criminal can not. Your input is always welcom hr and I dfor on will defend your right to post even if I do not agr with you...why? Bcause my Dear that is what this country is founded on. Though I may not agree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it. Bush has brought this country dangreously close to a Monarchy we need to move back toward the original concepts of America!

Posted by: John Clements 07-Feb-2008, 10:43 AM
Today on the Huffington Post, Arianna said that Obama speech after Super Tuesday’s election, gave her “goose bumps”, and my posted reply is as follows, (should you be interested)?

“The last time I got goose bumps from a politician’s speech. The speech came out of Dennis Kucinich’s mouth! In my opinion we already lost this election, even if we win it”!

Posted by: gwenlee 12-Feb-2008, 05:14 AM
Will it be back to the kitchen for Hillary? I guess the up coming primaries will tell

Posted by: maisky 12-Feb-2008, 06:20 AM
It looks a lot like Obama will have a good shot at being the next president with Hillary in the VP slot. Certainly the US has had enough of Republicant management.

Posted by: gwenlee 12-Feb-2008, 07:58 AM
I don't like the prospects of Obama or Hilliary. Or even McCain.
Electing those three will be like voting for the least of the 3 liberals. McCain is a liberal disguised as a republican. At least Obama and Hillary are out front with there liberalism. We are going to be in deeper pooh.gif than we are in now.

Posted by: John Clements 12-Feb-2008, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ 12-Feb-2008, 07:20 AM)
It looks a lot like Obama will have a good shot at being the next president with Hillary in the VP slot. Certainly the US has had enough of Republicant management.

I agree maisky, but I must say, where the hell have you been? Don’t you know there are no vacations in politics? Anyway it’s nice to know that you are still around. JC

Posted by: maisky 13-Feb-2008, 06:47 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 12-Feb-2008, 03:46 PM)
I agree maisky, but I must say, where the hell have you been? Don’t you know there are no vacations in politics? Anyway it’s nice to know that you are still around. JC

I am sorry! I have been guarding the swimming pool bar at the Marriott resort in San Juan, Puerto Rico as my contribution to Homeland Insecurity. It was a tough job, but someone had to step up and shoulder the burden. beer_mug.gif

It looks like Obama is picking up momentum.

Posted by: CelticRose 13-Feb-2008, 01:50 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 12-Feb-2008, 08:58 AM)
I don't like the prospects of Obama or Hilliary. Or even McCain.
Electing those three will be like voting for the least of the 3 liberals. McCain is a liberal disguised as a republican. At least Obama and Hillary are out front with there liberalism. We are going to be in deeper pooh.gif than we are in now.

gwenlee, I am with you! I am very shocked by McCain's momentum and I am in Arizona!

Valpal, I understand how you feel because in some ways I feel the same in regards to my lack of understanding of it all, but I am trying my best this time around. Politics is not really my thing, but I like reading and learning what everyone here has to say about the candidates. And while I take what each and every person here has to say about each candidate, I still believe in the constitution put together by our Founding Fathers. It has been a tie for me between Huckabee and Ron Paul.


Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Feb-2008, 02:05 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 12-Feb-2008, 06:14 AM)
Will it be back to the kitchen for Hillary? I guess the up coming primaries will tell

You must miss her in that kitchen. Feeling lonely with the hot stove all to yourself? smile.gif

Posted by: gwenlee 13-Feb-2008, 02:55 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 13-Feb-2008, 04:05 PM)
You must miss her in that kitchen. Feeling lonely with the hot stove all to yourself? smile.gif

I probable could teach her a few things in the kitchen and about what it is like to be an every day citizen, mother, wife, and career person. I think most people don't want another 4 years of Clinton in the white house. We need some new blood. As much as I don't like Obama he is a far better choice than Hillary and so far the polls are proving that. I think that Obama will take the nomination unless there ends up being some under the table deal. I hope the democrats don't shoot themselves in the foot by insisting that Hillary be on the ticket.

Posted by: John Clements 13-Feb-2008, 03:43 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 13-Feb-2008, 03:55 PM)
I probable could teach her a few things in the kitchen and about what it is like to be an every day citizen, mother, wife, and career person.  I think most people don't want another 4 years of Clinton in the white house.  We need some new blood.  As much as I don't like Obama he is a far better choice than Hillary and so far the polls are proving that.  I think that Obama will take the nomination unless there ends up being some under the table deal.  I hope the democrats don't shoot themselves in the foot by insisting that Hillary be on the ticket.

It sounds like something I would say, only you said it better!

Posted by: gwenlee 13-Feb-2008, 06:00 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 13-Feb-2008, 05:43 PM)
It sounds like something I would say, only you said it better!

Thank JC I'll take that as a compliment.

Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Feb-2008, 12:13 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 13-Feb-2008, 03:55 PM)
I probable could teach her a few things in the kitchen and about what it is like to be an every day citizen, mother, wife, and career person.

What makes you so sure of that? You resent her personally for some reason that has nothing to do with her politics, it seems to me, based on the idea that she is something more, or other, than an ordinary citizen. Are you sure you haven't stuck her up on some kind of unrealistic pedestal of influence or privilege in your mind, just for the pleasure of swatting her off it? Leave it for chauvinistic, ignorant men to send any female "back to the kitchen." As a career woman, you should be way above that. (Where, by the way, should we send McCain "back to", or Obama, if they don't make it? Got some nice gender-stereotyped place for them?)

No, I don't like her position on many things. No, I don't want to see her elected. I speak as a professional woman and a leader in my professional setting who worked hard to get here, and who is damned good in the kitchen too, and happy to be there when I am there, and sick of these artificial and arbitrary assignments about gender functions, and where you can "go back to" if you don't "make it."

Posted by: Dogshirt 14-Feb-2008, 07:55 PM
I would for a woman! But not her!
I would vote for an African American, perhaps even Obama,
but I don't know enough about his politics.
Hillary however has shown her colors FAR too often to even cosider.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: CelticRose 14-Feb-2008, 08:56 PM
I must admit that it greatly irritates me every time I hear some one say..."are we ready for a female or black president in this country?" Oh come on people! I want to vomit every time I hear this. Are we not grown up at this point in time?! Black men and women have been ruling countries for years...why does anyone even to question this?!

Exasperated by this very stupid question! rolleyes.gif


Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 15-Feb-2008, 08:24 PM
since when did America become a One Party System? Though the Democrats would like that, since it would be easier for them to carry out mass Murder of Innocents and Mass "rehabilitation of Murderers. But hey remembering Ted Kennedy is a Democrat it is easier to swallow like Mary Jo swallowed water in Ted K's car. The Democrats favour Gun Control how abour Drunk control, or Car Control. Drunks kill more people than guns each year. But then Drunk Driving has the Approval of the Democrats. As does Adultry and Homosexuality, and many other things that the "Christians" supposedly abhor, yet Hillary claims to be a Christian. If she is a Christian I am the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Feb-2008, 09:20 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 15-Feb-2008, 09:24 PM)
since when did America become a One Party System? Though the Democrats would like that, since it would be easier for them to carry out mass Murder of Innocents and Mass "rehabilitation of Murderers. But hey remembering Ted Kennedy is a Democrat it is easier to swallow like Mary Jo swallowed water in Ted K's car. The Democrats favour Gun Control how abour Drunk control, or Car Control. Drunks kill more people than guns each year. But then Drunk Driving has the Approval of the Democrats. As does Adultry and Homosexuality, and many other things that the "Christians" supposedly abhor, yet Hillary claims to be a Christian. If she is a Christian I am the Easter Bunny.

If this were more coherent, I'd call it a hate monologue, man. As it stands, it's such a word and thought salad it's pretty much harmless. And listen -- whether or not Hillary is a Christian -- and that is for her to say, or no one at all -- you are no Easter Bunny. smile.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 16-Feb-2008, 12:12 AM
Christians are to be judged by the teachings of Jesus who started the faith. Well she sure is a far cry form the things he taught. So based on that it stands that she is no more a Christian than I am the Easter Bunny. And aside from that you missed the fact that it is still a two party race and at this juncture I would vote for anything but Hillary or Obama. If the Republicans ran a dog I would vote for the dog before I would vote for Obama or Clinton, In fact if the Republicans ran no one I would cast my ballot for ME.

Posted by: gwenlee 16-Feb-2008, 07:40 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 15-Feb-2008, 11:20 PM)
If this were more coherent, I'd call it a hate monologue, man. As it stands, it's such a word and thought salad it's pretty much harmless. And listen -- whether or not Hillary is a Christian -- and that is for her to say, or no one at all -- you are no Easter Bunny. smile.gif

I don't see a hate monologue. Did you read more into the statement?

Posted by: John Clements 16-Feb-2008, 10:03 AM
I didn’t vote for super delegates (or what ever you want to call them) to make decisions for me, I voted for representatives to follow my lead! It’s as simple as that, and as far as I’m concerned (and I’m sure a lot of other people out there) they better dam well do it!

Posted by: gwenlee 16-Feb-2008, 10:34 AM
JC how does a 21 year old who has never voted become a super delegate. I read the Chelsea was having dinner with one to persuade them to back her mother.

Posted by: stoirmeil 16-Feb-2008, 12:43 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 16-Feb-2008, 08:40 AM)
I don't see a hate monologue. Did you read more into the statement?

I was going to take this question at face value and point out some hateful and calumnious language in Druid's post -- but then on reflection I recognized the whole thing is hateful and calumnious, and there's no need to excerpt it. So I'll ask in return -- have you read enough from the statement, of tone, supposed facts, and cause-and-effect reasoning?

Posted by: John Clements 16-Feb-2008, 05:02 PM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 16-Feb-2008, 11:34 AM)
JC how does a 21 year old who has never voted become a super delegate.  I read the Chelsea was having  dinner with one to persuade them to back her mother.

I don’t know gwenlee, but when I was young man starting out at the bottom in the ad business (which we use to say would be a great business, if it weren’t for the “clients”), I often had to follow instruction from my “superiors” even though I didn’t agree them, during the learning process, (which made me nothing more then a “yes” man).
Yes men, not unlike the 150 or so, young, “partisan” attorneys, who were appointed to the justice department, by the: Bush gang.
And so it wouldn’t surprise me if the democrats would do the same thing, (especially Hillary) with regard to the young super delegates? Although as fare as I know, there’s only one super delegate, unless I mistaken? (Either way it’s smells).

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Feb-2008, 02:30 AM
I got an E-mail that I felt was worth sharing here since it pretty well sums things up, but then my Dad has always been good at summing things up...


Subject: Mrs. Brett Favre Starts for Packers


Perfect Analogy: They are equally qualified!!

Mrs. Brett Favre Starts!

In Green Bay today, the Packers made a shocking announcement. Their starting quarterback this Sunday will be Mrs. Deana Favre. Fans in Green Bay were shocked when this announcement was made, but Mrs. Favre assured the fans that, "Hey, I know this game. I live with Brett. I have taken several road trips on the team plane. I've gone to the pre-game meal. I know a lot of the Packers. I've played around with a lot of the Packers in the back yard. I've tossed the football with them, and I know what a slot right 60-Prevent-Slot-Hook-And-Go is and I know how to avoid a corner blitz." So they polled the people in Green Bay, 50% of Packers fans are excited, motivated, looking forward to the big game.


All right, you think that's ridiculous? Let me reread this:

In a shocking announcement today, Mrs. Hillary Clinton announced that she is running for president of the United States because she knows Bill Clinton and has lived with him, and she was there on a lot of trips to China and around the world, and she really cared about kids for 35 years. She's fought and she stood up for kids, and she's tried to fix health care, and she knows fifty percent of the American people say, "That's good enough for us."

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 17-Feb-2008, 04:10 PM
My last post might be taken as favoring Obama (since some here on this forum seem to think the choice is Obama or Clinton) so here is some information on Obama that makes me think he would be bad for America and good for the Enemies of this nation. it was on the Oprah Show...hey wait let's draft Oprah as the Democrat for President, she is a woman, rich, and Powerful, and has been part of a Sex Scandal (the school she runs in Africa) sounds like the Perfect Democrat for President. But I digress so lets look at the Church Obama is so proud of! Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting. Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming. Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned.

Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.

Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Posted by: maisky 18-Feb-2008, 06:01 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 17-Feb-2008, 04:10 PM)
My last post might be taken as favoring Obama (since some here on this forum seem to think the choice is Obama or Clinton) so here is some information on Obama that makes me think he would be bad for America and good for the Enemies of this nation. it was on the Oprah Show...hey wait let's draft Oprah as the Democrat for President, she is a woman, rich, and Powerful, and has been part of a Sex Scandal (the school she runs in Africa) sounds like the Perfect Democrat for President. But I digress so lets look at the Church Obama is so proud of! Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting. Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming. Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned.

Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.

Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:
www.tucc.org/about.htm

This may be the most blatantly racist post ever on RS. Shame on you!

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 20-Feb-2008, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 17-Feb-2008, 05:10 PM)
If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned.

Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!


While this forum is not moderated, you are should take the time to look at Snopes before passing along internet myths regarding Obama or anyone else.
See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

Posted by: MacDoff 24-Feb-2008, 01:53 AM
Hello,

Although I'm not an American citizen (I'm from the Netherlands-Europe) I would like to commend in this discussion.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter who becomes the new president because he or she will be a marionet in the arms of the guys who really have the power and then I'm talking about the illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the people in the CFR / FRB, the members of Skull & Bones etc. Those are the guys behind the screen who dictate their plans for a new world order on a very subtile and scrutinous way. Don't believe what politicians say, they're all liars. The only thing that counts is that a NWO will be created in which the civilian has to be controlled in all aspects of life. All those political issues as the wars in Irak, Afghanistan etc are created to make money out of the misery of others. A human life is worthless, even of your one people. They even twist historyfacts to mascarade these things. So be aware Americans!!

MacDoff

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 24-Feb-2008, 02:23 AM
Looks as if the Republicans are going to have McCain, so I will be writing in Huckabee. In a way I am glad since that will show my support for the man not the Party.

Posted by: CelticRose 25-Feb-2008, 03:47 PM
QUOTE (Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas @ 20-Feb-2008, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 17-Feb-2008, 05:10 PM)
If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned.

Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!


While this forum is not moderated, you are should take the time to look at Snopes before passing along internet myths regarding Obama or anyone else.
See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/church.asp

Druid of Ark, I have held my tongue till now. I have a friend who is a news producer and due to his job he has to do a magnitude of research. My friend is a very honorable young man and has told me that a lot of what you are posting about Obama is totally false and for me to look on Snopes.com to confirm it for myself. His news production rely a lot on Snopes so I trust what my friend is saying and snopes. So please take a look at the link what Mailagnus posted above. (thanks Mailagnus for beating me to this wink.gif )

Please note that while I am not in the least an Obama supporter, I have heard all kinds of things about this guy from swearing an oath only from the Koran when becoming senator to other unmentionables. Be wary and don't believe what all you hear and say and do the research yourself. smile.gif

Now I have to check out Ralph Nader who has entered the race...ugh. There is some speculation that Mick Romney may come back. This is all getting wearisome to me. Oh well. Still I say may the best person win! king.gif thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 25-Feb-2008, 06:41 PM
Celtic Rose, Unless I am mistaken Hillary has not bowed out officially so according to some the "best man" is a woman. But that bit aside I agree may the best person win. Though I am not sure the best has ever been in the office of President! If David Duke, the White Supremacist was running for President his stand would be called into question as to if he could fairly represent all the people of America, the same Could be asked if a Scotsman who like myself were active in Saor Alba could and would treat other races fairly. I mena it seems that the Democrats want "special treatment" for their candidates, which has made me sick of them so much that if the Apostle Paul were running as a Democrat and Lucifer wer running as a Republican I would vote republican just because I have become sick of the Democrats trying to slant the playing field in their favour by askign people to ignore things that are negative about their candidates and look for the flaws in the Republicans. Hey the republicans do the same so kinda makes me wonder if any of them are worth the vote anymore.

Posted by: MacFive 25-Feb-2008, 09:30 PM
Mailagnas is right. This is an unmoderated forum and I believe that we all have the abilitiy to objectively discuss posts that are made and to discredit or affirm that post in a respectiful manner.

However, the question begs if this is really a church in the sense of a place of worship or a political action committee. I do not see this as an issue with Obama as John F. Kennedy was Catholic and people worried if the Pope would be dictating to JFK policy! That did not happen and I firmly believe that whoever is elected as President of the United States will act in the best interest of the country.

Back to this church which is a bit off topic. It does state on this "Church's" website:

"this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa"

I have never heard of a church having a commitment to any specific country. Nor, would I want to be associated with a Church that focuses on one interest rather than the general humanity of all peoples across the world.

We have no ties to the old world, nor to Africa, the MiddleEast, India, Russia, Poland, Brazil, Scotland, Ireland, England or any other country. We are AMERICANS. Most of our ancestors came to this country because

1) We were kicked out of a country.
2) We had dreams of a better life.
3) We were forced here by slavery or had our country taken away.

But that is in the past. We are all Americans, no matter how we came about being here it is time that these organizations stop living in the past and start living in the present for AMERICA!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 25-Feb-2008, 09:48 PM
A voice of reason among us from one that has posted rarely. I must commend the brave lad, and say it would be great if you feel led to join in more often! Beannacht ort.

Posted by: maisky 26-Feb-2008, 08:29 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 25-Feb-2008, 09:48 PM)
A voice of reason among us from one that has posted rarely. I must commend the brave lad, and say it would be great if you feel led to join in more often! Beannacht ort.

Macfive tends to be "politically correct" when it comes to not offending his many friends here on CR. It is always refreshing when he checks in here, where "reason" has little point of application... tongue.gif

Posted by: MacFive 26-Feb-2008, 04:52 PM
I do enjoy the political conversations and wish I had more time for that. I think perhaps I might get more involved in these wonderful discussions this year! smile.gif

Well Geez Maisky - my first two initials are P.C. after all! laugh.gif


Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 26-Feb-2008, 07:00 PM
All three candidates who are still in realistic contention have some negatives to go with their positives. There are certainly enough negatives for each that there's no need to make stuff up.
None has any real executive experience.
Obama is making promises that can't possibly be met without busting the Federal Budget worse than Bush has done. In addition, his stated policy views are more liberal than I am comfortable with. His pacifism is probably a greater threat to national defense than Jimmy Carter proved to be. I can't help but wonder whether his appeal is based a bit too much on sheer charisma.
I don't trust Clinton any more than I would trust any other corporate attorney. (I can't help wondering about the extent to which the evil corporate attorney portrayed by Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton was based at least in part on Clinton--anyone remember Vince Foster?) She also tends to have a vicious streak, as demonstrated in recent campaigning, and seems to change policy positions based on whatever the most recent polls show.
In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain said, "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's." It is reported that official military records which include the results of annual psychiatric exams after he was released from a North Vietnamese prison in 1973, indicate McCain was not diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder and had adjusted well to his ordeal. However, in response to the question, "What traits do you have that others object to?" McCain answered, "Quick temper." I can't help but wonder whether his temper may be a symptom of PTSD. It's kind of scary to think that someone with an admitted quick temper may be the person with his finger on the nuclear trigger.
All things considered, it's not an easy choice: at this time, I'm leaning toward McCain, but may well change my mind at any time before casting a ballot.

Posted by: John Clements 28-Feb-2008, 10:42 AM
You know if Obama gets the nod, (which I believe is a done deal) I wouldn't be a bit surprised, if “right wing” makes this presidential race, all about “Race”! In which case we won’t have to worry about terrorist, because we may have to fight the Civil war, allover again! All I want to know is, when are we going to get it right?

Posted by: stoirmeil 28-Feb-2008, 12:02 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 28-Feb-2008, 11:42 AM)
You know if Obama gets the nod, (which I believe is a done deal) I wouldn't be a bit surprised, if “right wing” makes this presidential race, all about “Race”! In which case we won’t have to worry about terrorist, because we may have to fight the Civil war, allover again! All I want to know is, when are we going to get it right?

Whoah!

There's a thought -- are you thinking about the traditional North-South secessionist lines, or the trendy new "red-state blue-state" divide? fish.gif


Posted by: John Clements 28-Feb-2008, 12:40 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 28-Feb-2008, 01:02 PM)
Whoah!

There's a thought -- are you thinking about the traditional North-South secessionist lines, or the trendy new "red-state blue-state" divide? fish.gif

You know Lynn, I think the lines have long since gone under ground, so who knows where there going to be drawn now? I guess well just have to see what happens, and hope for the best.

Posted by: gwenlee 11-Mar-2008, 01:53 AM
Sadly Hilliary is still in the race. I still think there is going to be some under the table deal to put Hillary on the ticket. I hope it doesn't happen, but we are talking politics. I read the run down of each candidates agenda and it all boils down to taking more money out of my pay check to give to an ever growing government. Which by the way the biggest job growth projects are in government and health care. Perhaps it is time for a second revolutions. Instead of talking change lets work toward real change

Posted by: John Clements 11-Mar-2008, 05:52 AM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 11-Mar-2008, 02:53 AM)
Sadly Hilliary is still in the race. I still think there is going to be some under the table deal to put Hillary on the ticket. I hope it doesn't happen, but we are talking politics. I read the run down of each candidates agenda and it all boils down to taking more money out of my pay check to give to an ever growing government. Which by the way the biggest job growth projects are in government and health care. Perhaps it is time for a second revolutions. Instead of talking change lets work toward real change

From your lips to gods ears, (not that he listening)!

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 11-Mar-2008, 06:06 AM
John, you said, "Not that He is Listening" do I take it that you believe in the God of the Christians? I had presupposed you were not a man prone to following a religion, so your reference to God has me quite puzzled. As for me I believe in many Gods a Goddesses.

Posted by: John Clements 11-Mar-2008, 06:18 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 11-Mar-2008, 07:06 AM)
John, you said, "Not that He is Listening" do I take it that you believe in the God of the Christians? I had presupposed you were not a man prone to following a religion, so your reference to God has me quite puzzled. As for me I believe in many Gods a Goddesses.

I agree Druid, there are many “gods”, (both bad and good), and we are them.

Posted by: John Clements 18-Mar-2008, 03:31 PM
If you missed Obama’s speech today, or don’t make an effort to hear it. You would have missed the point of what America is suppose to be.
Ok, so maybe it was no “I have a dream speech”, but it was pretty darn close. Hey, did I just say darn?

JC

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 18-Mar-2008, 03:37 PM
LOL it appears you did, let me check....yes Sinann (my faerie friend) confirmed it, she said it was not any of the gentry or the Ogres or the Trolls messing with your computer it was human input of Darn! Oh well guess that is the end of that debate. Too bad political debates are not settled as fast or as amicably.

Posted by: John Clements 18-Mar-2008, 03:56 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 18-Mar-2008, 04:37 PM)
LOL it appears you did, let me check....yes Sinann (my faerie friend) confirmed it, she said it was not any of the gentry or the Ogres or the Trolls messing with your computer it was human input of Darn! Oh well guess that is the end of that debate. Too bad political debates are not settled as fast or as amicably.

It would have been better if you had quoted me, so otheres would know what you're talking about, but you did get one thing right...my friend.


Posted by: John Clements 18-Mar-2008, 06:38 PM
I have posted this post again, so that it doesn’t get waylaid, and so that you might get the message.

If you missed Obama’s speech today, or don’t make an effort to hear it. You would have missed the point of what America is suppose to be.
Ok, so maybe it was no “I have a dream speech”, but it was pretty darn close.

Hey, did I just say darn?

I don’t know, but if this speech doesn’t bring a tear to your eye, you must be made of stone, or from another planet, like someone I know.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords

Thank you,
JC





Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 18-Mar-2008, 07:26 PM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 18-Mar-2008, 07:38 PM)
I have posted this post again, so that it doesn’t get waylaid, and so that you might get the message.

If you missed Obama’s speech today, or don’t make an effort to hear it. You would have missed the point of what America is suppose to be.
Ok, so maybe it was no “I have a dream speech”, but it was pretty darn close.

Hey, did I just say darn?

I don’t know, but if this speech doesn’t bring a tear to your eye, you must be made of stone, or from another planet, like someone I know.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords

Thank you,
JC

If bringing a tear to ones eye (emotionalism) were the mark of a good candidate for the Leader of this Nation, Obama would pull a poor second at best. The story of Sen. McCain and his tribulations in Nam are heart wrenching especially in light of the fact that it was the Democrats that got us in to that facade and it took the Republicans to hear the mandate of the people to bring our troops home.

I mean if we are to accept that emotionalism is a qualification, and disregarding other factors then yes Obama is good at pulling the heart strings. But I doubt that heart string pulling is enough when it comes to facing the Terrorists and other types of Challenges that lay ahead for this nation. I was sad to see that Mike did not get the nod but well I think McCain is better than either of the remaining Democratic Contenders.

Perhaps we should have a Chef run for office they could fill a room with onions chop them and bring tears to all eyes in the room. The tear jerking argument is the weakest I have heard thus far...but thats just my opinion.

Posted by: Dogshirt 18-Mar-2008, 11:54 PM
QUOTE
I don’t know, but if this speech doesn’t bring a tear to your eye, you must be made of stone, or from another planet, like someone I know



The whole thing was staged to make him look good. If you can't see that you're either soft between the ears or from that other planet.


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: TheCarolinaScotsman 19-Mar-2008, 12:21 PM
Well, Hillary's papers from her time as First Lady were finally released. Was reminded of her "vast right wing conspiracy" statement while denying Bill's infidelity. Proves one of two things:

1. She will lie for the sake of political convenience. In which case why should we believe anything she says.

OR

2. She's way too naive to be president.

Which is it Hillary, are you a liar or stupid?

Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 19-Mar-2008, 02:00 PM
WOW

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 19-Mar-2008, 02:10 PM
Hillary is too well educated to be called stupid, thus I would suspect she is a liar, but that places her in the ranks of the majority of Politicians. I mean how many Politicians do you really think are honest people.

Posted by: FamhairCloiche 19-Mar-2008, 02:49 PM
"Who should be the next president?"

Someone who thinks that the US is a good place that is populated by good people. A person who believes that a man should be able to live his life free of the interference of his own government. Our President should believe that our way of life is the best, and our massif of civility be a rock upon which all men should marvel.

In short, no one who is currently running. Until we manage to rid Washington of its crippling drug addiction, we will continue to spiral down the drain of our own washtub.

That drug? Money.

We don't need a revolution (aka Obama's "change"), we need an intervention!

Posted by: John Clements 19-Mar-2008, 05:33 PM
QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 19-Mar-2008, 12:54 AM)


The whole thing was staged to make him look good. If you can't see that you're either soft between the ears or from that other planet.


beer_mug.gif

You’re right Dog, Obamas speech was staged, and the production was great too.

So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be returning to a more civilized planet now.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 19-Mar-2008, 06:48 PM
We could use a man like Thomas Jefferson again..."The government that governs least governs best."

Do you know how to catch a herd of wild pigs? You put out corn, the pigs will find it and eat, then they will return for more. After a while you put up one side of a fence, and keep the corn the pigs will return and eat their fill. Then put up a second side, the pigs will return to the free corn. Then you put up a third side, and the pigs will continue through the open side. Last you put a fourth side (with a gate) when the pigs enter close the gate and you have yourself pigs for slaughter!

The government is constantly coming up with give-away programs (their version of FREE CORN) and they are about to close the gate. "The government that is big enough to suppl all your wants is big enough to take away all you have." Guess who said that? If you said Thomas Jefferson give yourself an "A+" if not go back to your High School History books, not the new Politically Correct ones but the ones that put America First!

Posted by: John Clements 20-Mar-2008, 04:19 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 19-Mar-2008, 07:48 PM)
We could use a man like Thomas Jefferson again..."The government that governs least governs best."

Do you know how to catch a herd of wild pigs? You put out corn, the pigs will find it and eat, then they will return for more. After a while you put up one side of a fence, and keep the corn the pigs will return and eat their fill. Then put up a second side, the pigs will return to the free corn. Then you put up a third side, and the pigs will continue through the open side. Last you put a fourth side (with a gate) when the pigs enter close the gate and you have yourself pigs for slaughter!

The government is constantly coming up with give-away programs (their version of FREE CORN) and they are about to close the gate. "The government that is big enough to suppl all your wants is big enough to take away all you have." Guess who said that? If you said Thomas Jefferson give yourself an "A+" if not go back to your High School History books, not the new Politically Correct ones but the ones that put America First!

There’s no doubt that Jefferson was wise, but he wasn’t perfect, no one is.
(I must be going insane).

Posted by: FamhairCloiche 20-Mar-2008, 06:19 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 20-Mar-2008, 04:19 AM)
There’s no doubt that Jefferson was wise, but he wasn’t perfect, no one is.
(I must be going insane).

Lord knows no good idea ever came from a perfect person.

Posted by: maisky 20-Mar-2008, 07:07 AM
QUOTE (TheCarolinaScotsman @ 19-Mar-2008, 12:21 PM)
Well, Hillary's papers from her time as First Lady were finally released.  Was reminded of her "vast right wing conspiracy" statement while denying Bill's infidelity.  Proves one of two things:

1.  She will lie for the sake of political convenience.  In which case why should we believe anything she says.

      OR

2.  She's way too naive to be president. 

Which is it Hillary, are you a liar or stupid?

Hillary is a lawyer. They spend 4 years in law school learning how to twist the truth without (quite) lying. laugh.gif

If you want a stupid person who lies habitually, look no further than GWB.

Posted by: John Clements 20-Mar-2008, 08:23 AM
QUOTE (FamhairCloiche @ 20-Mar-2008, 07:19 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 20-Mar-2008, 04:19 AM)
There’s no doubt that Jefferson was wise, but he wasn’t perfect, no one is.
(I must be going insane).

Lord knows no good idea ever came from a perfect person.

Let me rephrase that. If Thomas Jefferson hadn’t been a rapist and a slave owner, he might have been closer to perfection.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 20-Mar-2008, 11:59 AM
Slave owners are bad, agreed so lets toss out all the Founding Fathers, including George Washington, raise the Union Jack and be done with it! OMG I cannae believe you John! There is no perfect person, but Jefferson was for the people not for the Government running the lives of the people, or perhaps the wild pigs!

Posted by: John Clements 20-Mar-2008, 01:23 PM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 20-Mar-2008, 12:59 PM)
Slave owners are bad, agreed so lets toss out all the Founding Fathers, including George Washington, raise the Union Jack and be done with it! OMG I cannae believe you John! There is no perfect person, but Jefferson was for the people not for the Government running the lives of the people, or perhaps the wild pigs!

You can’t believe me? I can’t believe myself.

Posted by: John Clements 14-Apr-2008, 04:24 PM
And in the lead we have “Your Momma Obama”. He may be a dark house in this race, (no pun intended), but he’s running strong, and coming around the far turn into the stretch.

Although I must say, that he’s being pushed nose to tale, by “Slick Willey in Drag”, also known as Billary. Who we all know won’t spare the whip, to make a move either on the inside, or draft wide, into the Denver straight a way, to the finish line.

And running theird, (but only because there are three horses in this race at the moment), we have Rigor Man McCain, also known as the Straight Shooter, (although I knew Davy Crocket, and he's no Davy Crocket).

So ladies and gentlemen, as you all know. This could be any ones race, but one thing is for sure. It’s not going to be ours!

Posted by: John Clements 08-May-2008, 06:55 AM
This is not a roomer. Every week some 124 veterans, either attempt, or suck seed at committing suicide, and guess what. John McCain voted against the latest GI bill, (to help our vets), but then, it would have made any difference anyway. Since Bush had pledged to veto the bill, should it get to his desk. Now that’s a fact. That you won’t see on Fox Fools News.

Wake up people, we’re running out of time, lives, and money.
JC

Posted by: gwenlee 08-May-2008, 07:01 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 08-May-2008, 08:55 AM)
Wake up people, we’re running out of time, lives, and money.
JC

So True JC. None of these folk have a clue. As I said before we are in deep pooh. Have you thought of running for president?

Posted by: John Clements 08-May-2008, 07:18 AM
QUOTE (gwenlee @ 08-May-2008, 08:01 AM)
QUOTE (John Clements @ 08-May-2008, 08:55 AM)
Wake up people, we’re running out of time, lives, and money.
JC

So True JC. None of these folk have a clue. As I said before we are in deep pooh. Have you thought of running for president?

Yes I have thought of running for president, but to quote Groucho Marx. I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member.
(See my above comment, about Vets committing suicide, which is what this response is referring too.)

Later,
JC

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 08-May-2008, 08:17 AM
It is interesting the Delima created for us by the Unseen Powers of Government. Do we support a man with known ties to the Muslim world, or a man that is a War Veteran and in fact served as a POW. It seems that he is more an example of a soldier than those Panty waist whimps that are committing suicide because they have got no backbones to stand up and face life. Where the Heck is George Patton when we need him? I mena get real yes some former Service men commit suicide, but hey many non Service related people commit suicide. I knwo because I almost became one of them. But I had an Epiphany in the Hospital, and realized that Suicide is not the answer. Getting off yer whiney butt and doing something to chnage your situation is! I would rather support a man that has been in War than a man whose very relatives in the Middle East may one day decide to Bomb my country, like they did the Twin Towers! Okay lets compromise, Vote for Hillary, she at ;east admits she cant make a decision, the best advice she ever got was on what clothes to wear. I never before believed in the Conspiracy theories but this election year has made me a Believer.

Posted by: John Clements 08-May-2008, 10:02 AM
QUOTE (Druid_of_Ark @ 08-May-2008, 09:17 AM)
It is interesting the Delima created for us by the Unseen Powers of Government. Do we support a man with known ties to the Muslim world, or a man that is a War Veteran and in fact served as a POW. It seems that he is more an example of a soldier than those Panty waist whimps that are committing suicide because they have got no backbones to stand up and face life. Where the Heck is George Patton when we need him? I mena get real yes some former Service men commit suicide, but hey many non Service related people commit suicide. I knwo because I almost became one of them. But I had an Epiphany in the Hospital, and realized that Suicide is not the answer. Getting off yer whiney butt and doing something to chnage your situation is! I would rather support a man that has been in War than a man whose very relatives in the Middle East may one day decide to Bomb my country, like they did the Twin Towers! Okay lets compromise, Vote for Hillary, she at ;east admits she cant make a decision, the best advice she ever got was on what clothes to wear. I never before believed in the Conspiracy theories but this election year has made me a Believer.

John McCain a hero… my you know what! The real hero’s didn’t get caught, didn’t squeal, and didn’t come back. In my opinion McCain is a fraud, a blow hard, and a danger to humanity. I think that just about sums him up.

So, what’s up with you, you couldn’t even get suicide right, (Just kidding of course).

Posted by: Patch 08-May-2008, 10:28 AM
QUOTE (John Clements @ 08-May-2008, 05:02 AM)
John McCain a hero… my you know what! The real hero’s didn’t get caught, didn’t squeal, and didn’t come back. In my opinion McCain is a fraud, a blow hard, and a danger to humanity. I think that just about sums him up.

So, what’s up with you, you couldn’t even get suicide right, (Just kidding of course).

Mc Cain is a "few cards shy". He jokes about his (physical) "fight" in the Senate.

I suspect he either entered the service flawed or came out that way, maybe both.

I can not support either party at this point.

Slàinte,    

Patch


Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)