Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
It sure would reduce the number of neurotic people in this country. And breasts would hold far less power than they do now. :icon176:
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
It sure would reduce the number of neurotic people in this country. And breasts would hold far less power than they do now. :icon176:
Now, I've always thought the Hillary would be the one holding the whip!Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Go
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
Wolfscout,
I like your assessment of the candidates. Here is mine IMO. I believe we need someone who can sit across the table from certain world leaders and stand their ground.
Clinton - ideas are too close to so******m. No real experience. Don't trust her.
Obama - ideas are too close to so******m. No real experience. However, I believe he is trustworthy and would stand by his principals.
Edwards - simply don't trust anything he says. made his money in questionable lawsuits.
Huckabee - Like what he says, but his record doesn't really match. He was very liberal in the Baptist movement.
Giuliani - pretty liberal on social issues, but tough on foreign policy. Could be a good compromise.
Romney - Like what he says, but don't know much detail about his record.
Mccain - fairly conservative on social issues, tough on foriegn policy. If I can get over his previous stance on the immigration legislation he tried to introduce, I could probably vote for him.
Ron Paul would be great but has zero chance of the nomination, Huckabee and Romey are both religious extremists, Giuliani seems ot me to still be depending on what he did after 911, Hilary is to much like Bill, Obama although lacks experience, I believe JFK did also when he ran, but I still contend ANYONE HAS TO BE BETTER THEN WHAT WE HAVE NOW
Plus Bush is so focused on Iraq and Iran he has left everything else go, Nothing on the Economy. Housing, Oil Prices ect all have fallen to the waste side so he can focus on a war that will never be won and most Politicians and those in control in Washington and at the Pentagon have said this is a no win war for us, anyone remember Viet Nam... let's noty make this a 2000 version of Viet Name
I'd be very interested to see how Bloomberg enters the race. I think it's a virtual certainty that he'll enter somehow, and he'll do it in a high-tech, innovative way.
And he'll run based on issues, using the internet to figure out what's actually important, and using platform thinkers like Unity08 http://www.unity08.com/
This would be a fascinating experiment in grassroots politics if it works...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clevernick
He will but despite all the money he has, I do not see him winning, Fred Thompson entered way to late a friend of mine is a die hard Thompson fan and he told me last nigh,t Thompson entered way to late but who knows
Talking republican candidates, I'd absolutely prefer Michael Bloomberg to his predecessor Giuliani (who has kept a very low primaries campaign profile and is no doubt planning to make a big break on Super Tuesday). If he were elected, Giuliani would just continue the highly polarizing stance of Bush when it comes to foreign policy, immigration issues, social policies etc, the whole "take it or leave it" attitude to the non-U.S. world.
Like her or not, Hilary is a formidable candidate. She's not backing down; she seems to be very determined. A Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton White House is a real possibility, and you know Bill is going to play a big role, campaining as well as governing.
Personally, I prefer Obama. He's intelligent, charismatic and knows how to compromise( something the present White House occupant doesn't know the meaning of). He reminds me so much of JFK.
Although I like Edwards, I don't see him as President; Attorney General maybe.
Now the Republican: I wouldn't underestimate McCain. Although he supported Bush in the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to be as uncompromising as W. I don't believe he'd veto the Stem Cell Research Bill. Plus, he has a lot of supporters among Independents. That's why he won the NH primary.
As for Romney, he has the big bucks, but that doesn't always translate into votes. What I do think is impressive is that he is a Republican Governor in a predominantly Democratic state( Mass.). Obviously he attracted a lot of crossover votes, which could be an asset in the general election, but it won't mean squat in the primary.
Personally I don't believe an ordained minister, which Huckabee is, should be running for a political office. In my mind mixing politics with religion is a recipe for disaster. There are many examples of that in the world.
Giulianni, although I think he did a superior job as Mayor of New York even before 911, comes across as a surly type, which doesn't bode well dealing with foreign leaders.
Fred Thompson should go back on Law and Order.
Bloomberg could step right in here, especially if the GOP leaders falter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6
Interesting, you say that, on the news today they took a poll and found yhat no Repbulican realy has enough support for any walk away nonimation, none of the candiates running in the Republican Party seem to be able to attract any major numbers they said like the Demoxrats seem to, and it was viewed as very possible that the Republican Convention may be the only way to nomiate, that when it come no Republican will have near enough Deligates to elect a nominee, they claim this may not be true With the DEmocratics oending the outcoe of more primary,
As they said, the Democratics like it or not, are far more organized then the Republican Candidates are
Well, the reason may be that there are many more good candidates on the Republican side...Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Interrsting, I haven't see ANY GODD Candidates on the Reblican Side, all i have see are 2 Religious Fantatics and a Sen. who may not make it to the convention, I would love ot see Ron Paul win itQuote:
Originally Posted by rce
Fred Thomas has no chance at the nomination
Look one of our best presidents in modern memory was Bill Clinton, look at the impact he had on our budget, race relations, and that he did work to repair a welfare system that was very out of wack.
Hilary has put her mark on children concerns and thank god health insurance for all. Believe me that took mmmm huge balls to challenge the insurance and health care industries but she did. She took a big hit for that but again that was about 19 years ago so many today fail to remember it.
McCain also has had a very great past record that the bushies attacked like they did Kerry smearing with lies 2 american heros for a draft dodging moron.
I disagree (thread derail or not. ;) ) I think that the reason the USA leads in teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is because of the puritan attitudes that deny us the ability to teach the truth about sex and sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
When you lie, whether overtly or by omission, to a kid on one front, they'll never believe you on another.
As the female hypnotist was wont to say...Quote:
Originally Posted by Playfulsub
"Look into my eyes.... MY EYES DAMMIT!!"
Oz we agree again. The idea that sex is dirty and should not be discussed is a big thing here in the states. Instead of telling the kids the truth and all the truth we give them saying like just say NO, it didn't work for drugs why would it work for sex.
We need to stop worrying about other peoples private lives and worry about how we treat each other with respect and honor till the person shows he or she has little of either.
Thank You To Everyone Who Voted In This Poll
Obama better watch his back where Hil-Billy is concerned. Me...I am looking for the 'none of the above' box. I don't like any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rora
Who would you want??
Ron Paul??
I'm with rora: I don't like any of them either. Don't know who I would prefer, but certainly none of the options available.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I really don't like any of them. For the first time in my life..I may be an undervote.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Than God that Bush and Chaney have been in the oval office for the last 7 1/2 years. The way Chaney hunts, Al Quiada volunteers to stay in Iraq. At least were still alive and we have not had a major attack from Al Quiada. If it is a forgone conclusion that Obama will be the next President, let's rejoice because Obama pointed out that he and Bush use the same tactics in flushing out Al Quiada in Pakistan. He pointed this out to Hillary as proof that he was mature in foreign policy leadership. Well!