PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Presidential Candidates


HometownGal
07-21-2006, 09:40 AM
In under a year and a half, this country will elect its 44th President. There are quite a few names out there representing both the GOP and the Democratic party, and I have listed some of them below. Most of them have political track records and are well known (some positively and some negatively) but there are a few in each party that I am not as familiar with, as I am sure is the case with some of you. as well.

I was a registered Democrat for most of my adult life and finally realized that most of my ideals just don't fall in line with the Democratic Party. In late 2003, I changed over to the GOP and have not regretted my decision. However, I do not vote strictly in accordance with party lines and I never have. I give every candidate fair consideration while taking a good hard look at their platform, their positions on abortion, the death penalty, taxes, etc., weighing their pros and cons and vote accordingly. Over the years, I have been involved in numerous campaigns representing both parties and am going to continue to keep an open (but cautious) mind when it comes to voting for a candidate to hold the highest office in the land.

Who, in your opinion, has a legitimate shot at becoming our next President? If any of you can share some knowledge of a candidate from your particular state, it would be most appreciated. Thus far, those who have expressed interest are as follows:

Possible Democrat Candidates:

John Edwards (former North Carolina Senator)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York Senator)
Al Gore (former Vice President)
John F. Kerry (Massachusetts Senator)
Joe Biden (Delaware Senator)
Wesley Clark (Retired General)
Howard Dean (DNC Chairman)
Bill Richardson (New Mexico Governor)
Tom Daschle (Former South Dakota Senator)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin Senator)
Mike Warner (former Virginia Governor)
Dennis Kucenich (Ohio Congressman)
Tom Vilsack (Iowa Governor)

Possible Republican Candidates:

Rudy Giuliani (former New York City Mayor)
Condoleezza Rice (U.S. Secretary of State)
John McCain (Arizona Senator)
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House)
Jeb Bush (Florida Governor)
Bill First (Tennessee Senator)
George Allen (Virginia Senator)
George Pataki (New York Govenor)
Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (Arkansas Governor)
Sam Brownback (Kansas Senator)

For me, a resounding NO is given to all of the Demos except for Bill Richardson, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucenich, as I don't know enough about them to make a fair assessment. A big NO is also given to all of the GOP'rs except for Rudy Giuliani (he is my frontrunner right now), John McCain (my jury is still out on him, as I feel he rides the fence a little too much), George Allen, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Again, I simply do not know enough about Allen, Huckabee and Brownback to give them a fair shake.

Black@Gold Forever32
07-21-2006, 09:49 AM
Well I don't like to favor one side. I think both Dems and Reps are shady. I think alot of the problem in this country is just having really two major political parties to choose from. I voted in the last election and I probally will vote in the next one. I'm just glad come 2008 George W. Bush will be out of the White House.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-21-2006, 10:03 AM
In under a year and a half, this country will elect its 44th President. There are quite a few names out there representing both the GOP and the Democratic party, and I have listed some of them below. Most of them have political track records and are well known (some positively and some negatively) but there are a few in each party that I am not as familiar with, as I am sure is the case with some of you. as well.

I was a registered Democrat for most of my adult life and finally realized that most of my ideals just don't fall in line with the Democratic Party. In late 2003, I changed over to the GOP and have not regretted my decision. However, I do not vote strictly in accordance with party lines and I never have. I give every candidate fair consideration while taking a good hard look at their platform, their positions on abortion, the death penalty, taxes, etc., weighing their pros and cons and vote accordingly. Over the years, I have been involved in numerous campaigns representing both parties and am going to continue to keep an open (but cautious) mind when it comes to voting for a candidate to hold the highest office in the land.

Who, in your opinion, has a legitimate shot at becoming our next President? If any of you can share some knowledge of a candidate from your particular state, it would be most appreciated. Thus far, those who have expressed interest are as follows:

Possible Democrat Candidates:

John Edwards (former North Carolina Senator)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York Senator)
Al Gore (former Vice President)
John F. Kerry (Massachusetts Senator)
Joe Biden (Delaware Senator)
Wesley Clark (Retired General)
Howard Dean (DNC Chairman)
Bill Richardson (New Mexico Governor)
Tom Daschle (Former South Dakota Senator)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin Senator)
Mike Warner (former Virginia Governor)
Dennis Kucenich (Ohio Congressman)
Tom Vilsack (Iowa Governor)

Possible Republican Candidates:

Lamberts-Lost-Tooth (Babbling Idiot and Social Commentator)
Rudy Giuliani (former New York City Mayor)
Condoleezza Rice (U.S. Secretary of State)
John McCain (Arizona Senator)
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House)
Jeb Bush (Florida Governor)
Bill First (Tennessee Senator)
George Allen (Virginia Senator)
George Pataki (New York Govenor)
Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (Arkansas Governor)
Sam Brownback (Kansas Senator)

For me, a resounding NO is given to all of the Demos except for Bill Richardson, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucenich, as I don't know enough about them to make a fair assessment. A big NO is also given to all of the GOP'rs except for Rudy Giuliani (he is my frontrunner right now), John McCain (my jury is still out on him, as I feel he rides the fence a little too much), George Allen, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Again, I simply do not know enough about Allen, Huckabee and Brownback to give them a fair shake.


Okay ..now I am hurt that I didnt even get a consideration!

SteelCityMan786
07-21-2006, 10:46 AM
Rudy Guiliani in my opinion has a good shot of taking the republican bid. John McCain though looks like he should get it. This time the Douchebags who lost will switch positions and again LOSE. I think Guiliani and McCain will make an excellent President/Vice President Run.

tony hipchest
07-21-2006, 11:23 AM
of course im a homer but i think richardson will be one of the best candidates. unfortunately he is hispanic and speaks spanish so the extreme right will probably spend millions to smear him and put the fear of us becoming a spanish speaking nation with open boarders if he does get on the ticket. he did a fine job as energy secretary under clinton. he is very respected in washington and the national media. has appeared on countless national media panels (including FOX) for his insight and expertise. although democratic, he appeals to many republicans (tax cuts, supports death penalty, crackdown on drugs, on the flipside our last governor rep. gary johnson was for legalization). around here he has been called a rep in dems clothing.

http://www.issues2000.org/Bill_Richardson.htm this site will tell you all you want to know about his stances on various topics:

Bill Richardson on Abortion
Resist any effort to weaken a woman's right to choose. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Budget & Economy
Grow the trade link to Mexico and attract Hollywood business. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Civil Rights .
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Bill Richardson on Crime .
Toughened DWI and sex offender laws. (Jan 2004)
Domestic violence incidents start with drinking. (Jan 2004)
Mandatory jail time, especially for repeat offenders. (Oct 2002)
Supports death penalty: zero tolerance for heinous crimes. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)

Bill Richardson on Drugs
Crack down on illegal drug labs. (Jan 2004)
No legalization: drugs play an insidious role in crime. (Oct 2002)
Drug Courts and treatment instead of incarceration. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Education
Equip every 7th grader with a laptop computer. (Jan 2004)
Increase the salary of school teachers. (Jan 2004)
A plan that can reach straightforward education goals. (Jan 2004)
Charter schools show tremendous promise. (Jan 2004)
Expand the lottery scholarship program for college students. (Jan 2004)
No vouchers: they abandon public schools. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)

Bill Richardson on Energy & Oil
$6M for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. (Jan 2004)
Develop alternative energy, including wind & solar. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Environment
Expand and create new state parks. (Jan 2004)
Develop a comprehensive water management plan. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Free Trade
Expand regional trade with Chihuahua. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Government Reform
Focus on eliminating waste and fraud from public spending. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Health Care
Secure lower prescription drug costs for seniors. (Jan 2004)
Focus on raising childhood immunization rates. (Jan 2004)
Increase access to affordable health care. (Jan 2004)
Consolidate mental health and substance abuse therapy needs. (Jan 2004)
Restrain Medicaid costs and maintain benefits. (Jan 2004)
Affordable access to healthcare for all New Mexicans. (Oct 2002)
New Mexico Cares: invest in our health. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Homeland Security
Spend $250K annually to fight base closures. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Jobs
Film industry initiatives create jobs. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Tax Reform
Continue to cut taxes and reform the tax code. (Jan 2004)
Reduce income tax; create Taxpayer Bill of Rights. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Technology
Allocate capital to education and water projects. (Jan 2004)


Bill Richardson on War & Peace
Click here for the full quote on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
Homeland Security Department at federal AND state level. (Oct 2002)

floodcitygirl
07-21-2006, 11:34 AM
Okay ..now I am hurt that I didnt even get a consideration!Hey! I nominated you, remember??? :smile: Got me in trouble around here too! Geesh...no appreciation for the loyal campaigner! :rolleyes:

HometownGal
07-21-2006, 12:30 PM
Rudy Guiliani in my opinion has a good shot of taking the republican bid. John McCain though looks like he should get it. This time the Douchebags who lost will switch positions and again LOSE. I think Guiliani and McCain will make an excellent President/Vice President Run.

I have to agree with you there, SteelCityMan. I, too, think Giuliani/McCain would make a fine team, though as I said, I am not 100% sold on McCain yet. He cast a shadow of doubt in my eyes during the 2004 election when he was riding the fence on both Bush and Kerry, though I do realize that he is a Vet just as Kerry is.

Thanks for the heads-up on Bill Richardson, Tony. My only problem with him, from you listing his stances on different issues, is that I am fiercely PRO LIFE. I have the same problem with Rudy Giuliani. This is why I want to know as much as I can about each potential candidate well in advance of the election.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-21-2006, 12:46 PM
Hey! I nominated you, remember??? :smile: Got me in trouble around here too! Geesh...no appreciation for the loyal campaigner! :rolleyes:


I hereby appoint Flood as my Vice-President..(If anything happens to me ...and she takes office...someone PLEASE appoint an independent investigator to look into the matter)

Also..I would like to humbly change my position name to ..High Potentate/God Emporer of the United States...

floodcitygirl
07-21-2006, 02:21 PM
I hereby appoint Flood as my Vice-President..(If anything happens to me ...and she takes office...someone PLEASE appoint an independent investigator to look into the matter)

Also..I would like to humbly change my position name to ..High Potentate/God Emporer of the United States...Hmmmm...High Potentate/ God EMPRESS of the United States....hmmmm......

Mosca
07-21-2006, 02:29 PM
Guiliani was not highly regarded by those he governed in New York City until after the WTC attack. But his demeanor after the attack won him a lot of respect on the national level. I think he would be severely overmatched at the national and international level.

I'd have a tough time getting behind McCain, whom I feel is the best of the Republican candidates, but I could vote for him over some of the Democrats.

As a lifelong Dem I know what you mean, HG; but for me there is no way I could join what the Republican party has become. I could have joined what it was in the '60s and '70s; did you know that Nixon was the father of the Environmental Protection Agency? I'd rather be a conservative Democrat than a Republican today.

Of all the people on that list, you know who I like? Al Gore. I really think he's been sold short by a lot of people. He's a conservative Democrat. His biggest failing is his appearance in public, his stiffness; but look how well our current president has performed with his scripted ease in public! But in this age of "It's not what you say but how loud you say it", I don't look for Gore to have the desire to take on the abuse. But he's a good man, he has experience, and he would make a good President. Of the Dems, that's the guy who could get elected AND WHOM I WOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO HAVE PRESIDENT. Spare me the Deans and the Edwardses, populist pretenders who have no idea of how to take on Putin and Ahmadinejad. And god forbid the Dems nominate Hillary Clinton. Even if she got elected, she is far too polarizing a figure to govern effectively.

Look for some serious backlash these next two elections.



Tom

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-22-2006, 10:40 AM
Hmmmm...High Potentate/ God EMPRESS of the United States....hmmmm......

Im scared..:uhh: :horror: :uhh:

HometownGal
07-22-2006, 02:21 PM
Guiliani was not highly regarded by those he governed in New York City until after the WTC attack. But his demeanor after the attack won him a lot of respect on the national level. I think he would be severely overmatched at the national and international level.

I'd have a tough time getting behind McCain, whom I feel is the best of the Republican candidates, but I could vote for him over some of the Democrats.

As a lifelong Dem I know what you mean, HG; but for me there is no way I could join what the Republican party has become. I could have joined what it was in the '60s and '70s; did you know that Nixon was the father of the Environmental Protection Agency? I'd rather be a conservative Democrat than a Republican today.

Of all the people on that list, you know who I like? Al Gore. I really think he's been sold short by a lot of people. He's a conservative Democrat. His biggest failing is his appearance in public, his stiffness; but look how well our current president has performed with his scripted ease in public! But in this age of "It's not what you say but how loud you say it", I don't look for Gore to have the desire to take on the abuse. But he's a good man, he has experience, and he would make a good President. Of the Dems, that's the guy who could get elected AND WHOM I WOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO HAVE PRESIDENT. Spare me the Deans and the Edwardses, populist pretenders who have no idea of how to take on Putin and Ahmadinejad. And god forbid the Dems nominate Hillary Clinton. Even if she got elected, she is far too polarizing a figure to govern effectively.

Look for some serious backlash these next two elections.



Tom

We do have something in common, Mosca, as part of the reason I left the Democratic Party was because I was disgusted at what the party had reduced itself to. I don't want to get into all of that here, because as I said in my original post - if there is a Democratic candidate out there who I feel strongly about, has a solid platform (which the Dems did not have in either 2000 or 2004), matches or comes close to matching my ideals and who I feel can continue to protect this country against those who want to harm us, I would vote for him/her in a heartbeat, regarless of their party affliliation. That is why I want to know as much about all of the candidates that I am not all that familiar with, so that I can make a sound decision with an open mind.

I've never been an Al Gore fan, even when I was a Democrat. He reminds me too much of a snarling dog and I don't like his temper tantrums. He is, however, a very intelligent man who I believe is a much better choice on the Demos' list of possible candidates than Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Biden or Daschle. Just mho.

Black@Gold Forever32
07-22-2006, 02:43 PM
I personally like Wesley Clark

3 to be 4
07-22-2006, 10:07 PM
Guiliani is a joke. hes a hero for doing his job and walking around with dirt all over himself, riding on the tragedy of 9/11. totally offensive. Before 9/11 people were laughing at him for his affair that broke up his marriage.

too soon for 2008, but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama, this generations JFK, without the sex addiction.

Jeremy
07-23-2006, 08:25 AM
:point: but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama

That's good, really. Let's see if he's still a Senator before you nominate him to take a crushing loss.

Mark Warner is the best chances for the Dems. He's a Southern Governor with a solid track record on his state's economy. He's a better Governor than Bush was.

As for the Repubs, run Rudy please. I'd like to see you betray your family values image by running the man who kept his mistress inside Gracie Manor while he was still mayor.

3 to be 4
07-23-2006, 10:33 AM
:point: but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama

That's good, really. Let's see if he's still a Senator before you nominate him to take a crushing loss.

Mark Warner is the best chances for the Dems. He's a Southern Governor with a solid track record on his state's economy. He's a better Governor than Bush was.

As for the Repubs, run Rudy please. I'd like to see you betray your family values image by running the man who kept his mistress inside Gracie Manor while he was still mayor.

you think Obama is in "trouble" in Illinois??? the guy has IT written all over him and is generating more enthusiasm than any Democrat since RFK. they'll be a call to name him on the frickin ticket in 2008 but hopefully he'll have the sense to wait.

I agree Warner is a solid choice. And i also agree Guiliani would be a NY disaster the same way the Sainted Mario Cuomo would have been for the Democrats.

McCain would be unbeatable as the nominee but Republicans are too stupid to nominate him. im hoping they nominate of right wing freak like Rick Sanitarium ( I thought of Sanitarynapkin but Sanitarium is a little more subtle)

Jeremy
07-23-2006, 11:19 AM
McCain has some skeletons in his closet too.

The Repubs are up against it right now. But that's what happens when the President picks a lame duck VP.

HometownGal
07-24-2006, 09:48 AM
:point: but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama

That's good, really. Let's see if he's still a Senator before you nominate him to take a crushing loss.

Mark Warner is the best chances for the Dems. He's a Southern Governor with a solid track record on his state's economy. He's a better Governor than Bush was.

As for the Repubs, run Rudy please. I'd like to see you betray your family values image by running the man who kept his mistress inside Gracie Manor while he was still mayor.

Thanks for the heads-up on Mike Warner, Jeremy. :smile:

I've never been a person to cast judgment upon anyone, even a politician, who has an extra-marital affair simply because there are two sides to every story and most times, the media only portrays the one side that will put more bucks in their wallets. Though I definitely do not condone adultery, I don't use it as a basis to form an opinion as to whether or not a potential candidate is qualified to lead a country as large as the United States or to perform his duties in that capacity. I didn't condemn Clinton for his playtime with "that woman" (though I do believe it was wrong for him to lie about it under oath) and I'm not going to condemn Giuliani either - I have no first hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding their extra-marital activities other than what the media wanted us to know. As long as the candidate isn't a criminal, has a SOLID platform and a vision for this country that goes along with my preferences and ideals, I'm going to take a hard look at that candidate.

Hammer67
07-24-2006, 02:16 PM
Guiliani is a joke. hes a hero for doing his job and walking around with dirt all over himself, riding on the tragedy of 9/11. totally offensive. Before 9/11 people were laughing at him for his affair that broke up his marriage.

too soon for 2008, but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama, this generations JFK, without the sex addiction.

Well...the friends I have who live and have lived in Manhattan like the fact that they can walk around without being worried about rampant crime and filth. Just look at Times square pre and post Giuliani. I have and I can tell you there is a world of difference. New York is a much cleaner and safer city because of him.

And, what he did on 9/11 was be a leader. What else was he supposed to do? Run and hide in his home?
:dang:

Hammer67
07-24-2006, 02:20 PM
I, personally, am intrigued by Condi Rice. The lady has class & intelligence and is well respected by world leaders.
While heading Stanford, she brought the school from millions in debt to millions in surplus. I also like the fact that she goes against the myth of the Republican party holding back minorities which is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard.

McCain will probably run and probably win, though. I can't think of anyone from the Dem side with as much respect.

ARKIESTEEL
07-24-2006, 02:53 PM
As fickle as the population is they will think of only bad things related to the Republicans ( high gas prices war bad economy and such as this)and vote a dem in this time.

Hammer67
07-24-2006, 03:05 PM
As fickle as the population is they will think of only bad things related to the Republicans ( high gas prices war bad economy and such as this)and vote a dem in this time.

What bad economy are you in, my friend??!!

We are in an up swing! Check it!

:busted:

ARKIESTEEL
07-24-2006, 03:11 PM
What bad economy are you in, my friend??!!

We are in an up swing! Check it!

:busted:



Looking back thru Bush's terms the economy has not always been real good and folks recall the bad alot more than the good

Hammer67
07-24-2006, 03:19 PM
Looking back thru Bush's terms the economy has not always been real good and folks recall the bad alot more than the good

Of course there was this small incident called 9/11 that did have quite an effect on the economy (I got laid off because of it!).

But...check the unemployment numbers...they actually slightly lowered during Bush's first year and then spiked after 9/11 but are close to being back to pre- 9/11 numbers.

Just the facts ma'am!

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

Hawk Believer
07-24-2006, 03:23 PM
I, personally, am intrigued by Condi Rice. The lady has class & intelligence and is well respected by world leaders.
While heading Stanford, she brought the school from millions in debt to millions in surplus. I also like the fact that she goes against the myth of the Republican party holding back minorities which is the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard.

McCain will probably run and probably win, though. I can't think of anyone from the Dem side with as much respect.
Interesting that the initially most mentioned names for Rep presidential candidates in polling has been McCain, Guliani, and Schwarzenegger(Constitutional prohibition notwithstanding).

All pro-choice or pro-abortion (depending on how you want to frame it).

But I always take polling that is two years out with a truckload of salt. People pretty much jsut pick names that they are familiar with when asked in the polls at this point. People who are obscure now will emerge like they always do.

Re: McCain- I am in the camp of those who think he would most likely win if he was on a November ballot but that he will never be allowed to win a Republican nomination. He thinks outside of the party platform too much. Its a shame. Even though I disagree with many of his positions, I respect his political courage to vote his conscience and to admit when he has made errors. I wish there were more like him.

Hammer67
07-24-2006, 03:39 PM
Re: McCain- I am in the camp of those who think he would most likely win if he was on a November ballot but that he will never be allowed to win a Republican nomination. He thinks outside of the party platform too much. Its a shame. Even though I disagree with many of his positions, I respect his political courage to vote his conscience and to admit when he has made errors. I wish there were more like him.

A rarity among politicians, indeed.

CantStop85
07-24-2006, 03:43 PM
too soon for 2008, but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama, this generations JFK, without the sex addiction.
Obama will have my vote in 2012. Good comparison to JFK.

Mosca
07-24-2006, 06:10 PM
I don't know about you, Hammer, but my hip pocket says that the economy is suffering. It may be up overall, but not much of it is making its way down to this middle class guy.

If prices and profits go sky high but paychecks stay the same, the numbers will indicate a booming economy, sure. And I'm a devout capitalist, hell I make a living selling stuff. But folks's dollars aren't stretching like they did a few years ago, and it ain't because of 9/11. My paycheck was off 30% last year, and it's on track for another 10% hit this year.

There's only one thing worse than a tax-and-spend Democrat... a borrow-and-spend Republican.


Tom

Black@Gold Forever32
07-24-2006, 06:44 PM
About the economy booming and doing great is crap. We are going down in production already were I work. Plus we are laying off people left and right. Some of these people have families. I don't and I feel horrible everytime somebody with kids gets laid off and I still have a job and I have no kids.

Hammer67
07-25-2006, 01:55 PM
I don't know about you, Hammer, but my hip pocket says that the economy is suffering. It may be up overall, but not much of it is making its way down to this middle class guy.

If prices and profits go sky high but paychecks stay the same, the numbers will indicate a booming economy, sure. And I'm a devout capitalist, hell I make a living selling stuff. But folks's dollars aren't stretching like they did a few years ago, and it ain't because of 9/11. My paycheck was off 30% last year, and it's on track for another 10% hit this year.

There's only one thing worse than a tax-and-spend Democrat... a borrow-and-spend Republican.


Tom

I don't know about you guys, but I moved TO Detroit and actually got hired by Ford in IT. They have since laid people off but I got a raise. I make more now then I ever did cause I bust my ass. Pittsburgh was dead so I moved and changed careers. My brother just moved to Chicago and got a new job making more money then he ever did. My parents just moved to Kentucky because my mom got a new job as well. Not to mention my other friend, moving to Charlotte for yet another new job.

Work and pay are out there?if you aren't having any luck, maybe it's time to consider a change of location and/or career. There are sectors hurting but if you look at the raw numbers of the economy going back to the 50's, we are in great shape all things considered. Especially with unemployment about as low as it was for most of the Clinton years.

Don't believe the rhetoric out there folks!

Hammer67
07-25-2006, 01:58 PM
About the economy booming and doing great is crap. We are going down in production already were I work. Plus we are laying off people left and right. Some of these people have families. I don't and I feel horrible everytime somebody with kids gets laid off and I still have a job and I have no kids.

Tell me about it?I work in the auto industry so I know what you are going through better then anyone. But, I also know that there are people doing what they have to and moving to other industries cause the auto industry is cutting back.

If you work hard and don't become complacent, you will survive.

Blitzburgh55
07-25-2006, 02:57 PM
No more Rebulicans

3 to be 4
07-25-2006, 07:29 PM
Well...the friends I have who live and have lived in Manhattan like the fact that they can walk around without being worried about rampant crime and filth. Just look at Times square pre and post Giuliani. I have and I can tell you there is a world of difference. New York is a much cleaner and safer city because of him.

And, what he did on 9/11 was be a leader. What else was he supposed to do? Run and hide in his home?
:dang:

by all means, i think because he was mayor at the time of 9/11 he should be rewarded with the Presidency of the United States. The same way Bush deserved relection for being President on 9/11. after all, if you didnt vote for him ,you had "forgotten 9/11"

Jeremy
07-26-2006, 10:19 AM
I can't think of anyone from the Dem side with as much respect.

Then you haven't done much reading about them. Rice over Mark Warner? That's just a joke. And not a funny one.

Hammer67
07-26-2006, 10:23 AM
by all means, i think because he was mayor at the time of 9/11 he should be rewarded with the Presidency of the United States. The same way Bush deserved relection for being President on 9/11. after all, if you didnt vote for him ,you had "forgotten 9/11"

Now I never said he was presidential material...just keeping it real. :cool:

I am no big fan of Bush, either.

Jeremy
07-26-2006, 10:26 AM
I'm glad to see you can at least admit that Rudy isn't presidential material. It seems like the Repubs have bought into celebrity over substance in the last few years. I really can't see that strategy paying off for them in the long run. And it damn sure won't pay off for America.

Hammer67
07-26-2006, 10:29 AM
Are we really better off now? 50 years ago one income could easily support a family in spite of a higher tax burden.

Yes, but look at society now....

We now also own multiple cars, TV's, phones and other items that people didn't back in the day. We spend much more on entertainment and big ticket items then people in the 50's. You need to look at lifestyle changes as well. Has inflation risen? Sure. But so have average incomes and spending on non essential items.

We live in an age where every kid has a cell phone and they all have to have the latest video games. We own boats, multiple cars, bigger houses, bigger TVs, etc. Hell, we PAY for drinking water now! :dang:

There are many factors, not just the state of the economy that come into play in here.

Jeremy
07-26-2006, 10:34 AM
Yes, but look at society now....

We now also own multiple cars, TV's, phones and other items that people didn't back in the day. We spend much more on entertainment and big ticket items then people in the 50's. You need to look at lifestyle changes as well. Has inflation risen? Sure. But so have average incomes and spending on non essential items.

We live in an age where every kid has a cell phone and they all have to have the latest video games. We own boats, multiple cars, bigger houses, bigger TVs, etc. Hell, we PAY for drinking water now! :dang:

There are many factors, not just the state of the economy that come into play in here.

And thr lifestyle people enjoyed in the 50s was much different than what people enjoyed at the turn of the century or 100 years before that.

Maidenarcher
07-27-2006, 06:56 PM
In under a year and a half, this country will elect its 44th President. There are quite a few names out there representing both the GOP and the Democratic party, and I have listed some of them below. Most of them have political track records and are well known (some positively and some negatively) but there are a few in each party that I am not as familiar with, as I am sure is the case with some of you. as well.

I was a registered Democrat for most of my adult life and finally realized that most of my ideals just don't fall in line with the Democratic Party. In late 2003, I changed over to the GOP and have not regretted my decision. However, I do not vote strictly in accordance with party lines and I never have. I give every candidate fair consideration while taking a good hard look at their platform, their positions on abortion, the death penalty, taxes, etc., weighing their pros and cons and vote accordingly. Over the years, I have been involved in numerous campaigns representing both parties and am going to continue to keep an open (but cautious) mind when it comes to voting for a candidate to hold the highest office in the land.

Who, in your opinion, has a legitimate shot at becoming our next President? If any of you can share some knowledge of a candidate from your particular state, it would be most appreciated. Thus far, those who have expressed interest are as follows:

Possible Democrat Candidates:

John Edwards (former North Carolina Senator)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York Senator)
Al Gore (former Vice President)
John F. Kerry (Massachusetts Senator)
Joe Biden (Delaware Senator)
Wesley Clark (Retired General)
Howard Dean (DNC Chairman)
Bill Richardson (New Mexico Governor)
Tom Daschle (Former South Dakota Senator)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin Senator)
Mike Warner (former Virginia Governor)
Dennis Kucenich (Ohio Congressman)
Tom Vilsack (Iowa Governor)

Possible Republican Candidates:

Rudy Giuliani (former New York City Mayor)
Condoleezza Rice (U.S. Secretary of State)
John McCain (Arizona Senator)
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House)
Jeb Bush (Florida Governor)
Bill First (Tennessee Senator)
George Allen (Virginia Senator)
George Pataki (New York Govenor)
Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (Arkansas Governor)
Sam Brownback (Kansas Senator)

For me, a resounding NO is given to all of the Demos except for Bill Richardson, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucenich, as I don't know enough about them to make a fair assessment. A big NO is also given to all of the GOP'rs except for Rudy Giuliani (he is my frontrunner right now), John McCain (my jury is still out on him, as I feel he rides the fence a little too much), George Allen, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Again, I simply do not know enough about Allen, Huckabee and Brownback to give them a fair shake.


My state border Arkansas and Huckabee is suppose to be a pretty good guy......I like him, Rudy, and I would definitely vote for Condy if ol battle ax Hillary ran....

Hammer67
07-28-2006, 07:09 AM
And thr lifestyle people enjoyed in the 50s was much different than what people enjoyed at the turn of the century or 100 years before that.

Very true....I hate how politics tries to simpify everything down into black & white, easily processed talking points. Sometimes it goes deeper then "The economy sucks now"

Hammer67
07-28-2006, 08:49 AM
The most important thing I'm looking for is a candidate who will stand up to the Saudis and Chicoms, instead of blowing them like the last three administrations.

Unfortunately money influences power. Always has, always will.

HometownGal
07-28-2006, 10:00 AM
My state border Arkansas and Huckabee is suppose to be a pretty good guy......I like him, Rudy, and I would definitely vote for Condy if ol battle ax Hillary ran....

I'm probably going to get hammered here on this, but I would have a tough time voting for a woman to lead this country, especially in light of the current state of affairs worldwide. Some women will vote for a woman just because she IS a woman. I won't and I'm not saying here that I believe you would either, but it's just the way I feel. I do admire Condi for her experience, wisdom and tenacity, but I simply don't feel she has what it takes to lead a country as large and as diversified as ours. Just mho.

As for Hillary - blech. I scour the net every day to see if a band of pygmies have kidnapped both her and Nancy Pelosi, duct taped their mouths and have them safely tucked under a bridge somewhere in a far away land where trolls belong. :bouncy:

TasmanianTroy271
07-28-2006, 11:40 AM
Here's a question though; If McCain ran as an independent, d'you think he'd be able to draw enough votes from either side to have a chance?

3 to be 4
07-28-2006, 07:35 PM
Here's a question though; If McCain ran as an independent, d'you think he'd be able to draw enough votes from either side to have a chance?


yes yes yes. Perot could have won if he wasnt a nut. McCain isnt a nut. he'd win
40-30-30. many Democrats would vote for him as well as Pubs and hed get all the independants.

Maidenarcher
07-28-2006, 09:59 PM
I'm probably going to get hammered here on this, but I would have a tough time voting for a woman to lead this country, especially in light of the current state of affairs worldwide. Some women will vote for a woman just because she IS a woman. I won't and I'm not saying here that I believe you would either, but it's just the way I feel. I do admire Condi for her experience, wisdom and tenacity, but I simply don't feel she has what it takes to lead a country as large and as diversified as ours. Just mho.

As for Hillary - blech. I scour the net every day to see if a band of pygmies have kidnapped both her and Nancy Pelosi, duct taped their mouths and have them safely tucked under a bridge somewhere in a far away land where trolls belong. :bouncy:

Ok, you know you are going to definitely get hammered.....LOL
I guess if it were up to men, woman would still not be able to vote or do anything except feed them or give up the poontane. I love how the great men who founded this country said all men were created equal...And, whether or not that included woman (man as in mankind), we can tell by slavery that it didn't include blacks. So, I guess it's only the white men who are created equal......
I am definitely not a feminist or someone trying to start a racial/sex arguement. But really, as a woman I get tired of being treated as someone who is beneath a man. There are tons of things I can do that men can, and I d*mn well guarantee I can do some of them better. You as a woman perhaps have never experienced these things.......
As for the current state of affairs, a woman might actually do more good than you think...As a mother, wife, a mediator in my home, and did I mention I have a part time and a full time job...I do pretty well in managing everything...As do many women....Gosh, I feel as though I were responding to a man and not you, a woman...LOL

However, just so you know, I would never vote for a woman just because she was a woman. I would vote for the person best qualified....That whole sisterhood and sticking together thing is a bunch of crap....

Anyway, my teeth hurt from chomping on your a**........LOL
By the way, I thought your comment about Hillary and Nancy was funny....

Hammer67
07-28-2006, 11:19 PM
Ok, you know you are going to definitely get hammered.....LOL
I guess if it were up to men, woman would still not be able to vote or do anything except feed them or give up the poontane. I love how the great men who founded this country said all men were created equal...And, whether or not that included woman (man as in mankind), we can tell by slavery that it didn't include blacks. So, I guess it's only the white men who are created equal......
I am definitely not a feminist or someone trying to start a racial/sex arguement. But really, as a woman I get tired of being treated as someone who is beneath a man. There are tons of things I can do that men can, and I d*mn well guarantee I can do some of them better. You as a woman perhaps have never experienced these things.......
As for the current state of affairs, a woman might actually do more good than you think...As a mother, wife, a mediator in my home, and did I mention I have a part time and a full time job...I do pretty well in managing everything...As do many women....Gosh, I feel as though I were responding to a man and not you, a woman...LOL

However, just so you know, I would never vote for a woman just because she was a woman. I would vote for the person best qualified....That whole sisterhood and sticking together thing is a bunch of crap....

Anyway, my teeth hurt from chomping on your a**........LOL
By the way, I thought your comment about Hillary and Nancy was funny....

WoW...must be where I am from but I don't think I have ever seen a situation where a woman was disrespected as being beneath a man. Although I was raised to worship the fairer sex.:cool:

Maidenarcher
07-28-2006, 11:35 PM
WoW...must be where I am from but I don't think I have ever seen a situation where a woman was disrespected as being beneath a man. Although I was raised to worship the fairer sex.:cool:


Oh, what a cute and intelligent reply....LOL
I am being a smarta**, but it is true!

HometownGal
07-29-2006, 07:14 AM
Ok, you know you are going to definitely get hammered.....LOL
I guess if it were up to men, woman would still not be able to vote or do anything except feed them or give up the poontane. I love how the great men who founded this country said all men were created equal...And, whether or not that included woman (man as in mankind), we can tell by slavery that it didn't include blacks. So, I guess it's only the white men who are created equal......
I am definitely not a feminist or someone trying to start a racial/sex arguement. But really, as a woman I get tired of being treated as someone who is beneath a man. There are tons of things I can do that men can, and I d*mn well guarantee I can do some of them better. You as a woman perhaps have never experienced these things.......
As for the current state of affairs, a woman might actually do more good than you think...As a mother, wife, a mediator in my home, and did I mention I have a part time and a full time job...I do pretty well in managing everything...As do many women....Gosh, I feel as though I were responding to a man and not you, a woman...LOL

However, just so you know, I would never vote for a woman just because she was a woman. I would vote for the person best qualified....That whole sisterhood and sticking together thing is a bunch of crap....

Anyway, my teeth hurt from chomping on your a**........LOL
By the way, I thought your comment about Hillary and Nancy was funny....

Now that wasn't too bad - LOL! :smile:

With the way the tides have turned in this country over the last 20 years or so, I don't feel at all that I, as a woman, am treated any differently than a man. I think more can be said of the opposite. I've worked in the legal admin field for many years and watched first-hand how men are treated unfairly by the Court system, especially in domestic and child custody matters. Drive down the interstate and come upon a road construction crew - who is down in the hole and who is standing there chit-chatting or, as I saw last week, sitting on a cone putting on her makeup (usually making the same amount of money that the guy in the hole is). Most health care benefit providers offer annual free services to women, but don't afford the same to men (pregnancy, of course, excluded!) In the most recent case of Andrea Yates, I can almost guarantee you that if it was a man who brutally murdered his children like that, he would have been given the death penalty, no questions asked, as someone so correctly stated.

I can do many things that were once considered "man chores" - even change my own oil! I make one hell of a mess, but I eventually get it done. :cool:

As far as my opinion goes that I just wouldn't feel comfortable with a woman as President, I stand by that opinion, as it is just that - an opinion. I haven't come across a female candidate as of yet who I would feel comfortable with in the Oval Office. Who knows - that could change down the road, but for right now, it' just how I feel.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-29-2006, 07:17 AM
Ok, you know you are going to definitely get hammered.....LOL
I guess if it were up to men, woman would still not be able to vote or do anything except feed them or give up the poontane. I love how the great men who founded this country said all men were created equal...And, whether or not that included woman (man as in mankind), we can tell by slavery that it didn't include blacks. So, I guess it's only the white men who are created equal......
I am definitely not a feminist or someone trying to start a racial/sex arguement. But really, as a woman I get tired of being treated as someone who is beneath a man. There are tons of things I can do that men can, and I d*mn well guarantee I can do some of them better. You as a woman perhaps have never experienced these things.......
As for the current state of affairs, a woman might actually do more good than you think...As a mother, wife, a mediator in my home, and did I mention I have a part time and a full time job...I do pretty well in managing everything...As do many women....Gosh, I feel as though I were responding to a man and not you, a woman...LOL

However, just so you know, I would never vote for a woman just because she was a woman. I would vote for the person best qualified....That whole sisterhood and sticking together thing is a bunch of crap....

Anyway, my teeth hurt from chomping on your a**........LOL
By the way, I thought your comment about Hillary and Nancy was funny....


I would give serious consideration to voting for Condoleezza Rice:tap: ...As for Hillary...maybe getting her back into the White House isnt a bad idea..she could bring all the crap she stole BACK!:dang:

Stlrs4Life
07-29-2006, 09:17 AM
I wouldn't vote for either of them. Condo? Yeah let's go from the frying pan to the fire.

lamberts-lost-tooth
07-29-2006, 09:40 AM
I wouldn't vote for either of them. Condo? Yeah let's go from the frying pan to the fire.

If the Dems cant offer a better choice than a "Gore" or a "Kerry" type of politician this time around.... I most DEFINITELY would vote for a "Condo". Sooner or later they may figure out that the American public is too smart to accept extremists wrapped up to look like moderates. Gore & Kerry leaned so far to the left that they walk in circles.

Hammer67
07-30-2006, 09:09 AM
Oh, what a cute and intelligent reply....LOL
I am being a smarta**, but it is true!

Now if only i could get my wife to think that way!! :laughing:

Hines0wnz
01-11-2007, 06:37 PM
There is nothing presidential about any of the candidates. I foresee an ultra mud slinging campaign from everyone, even their pets.

SteelCzar76
01-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Guiliani or Obama. Though i feel i would be a much better fit than any of the prospective members of either party. LOL





"Hail Caesar,......HAIL THE BLACK AND GOLD"

Black@Gold Forever32
01-11-2007, 07:51 PM
I would vote for Obama.

Stlrs4Life
01-11-2007, 09:44 PM
If the Dems cant offer a better choice than a "Gore" or a "Kerry" type of politician this time around.... I most DEFINITELY would vote for a "Condo". Sooner or later they may figure out that the American public is too smart to accept extremists wrapped up to look like moderates. Gore & Kerry leaned so far to the left that they walk in circles.


Yeah, and the Reps gave us Bush for the past 6 years. Who leaned so far right......... you get the point.

Stlrs4Life
01-11-2007, 09:46 PM
I would vote for Obama.


I would to, and I hope he can gain some momentum in the next few years and some more experience.

Big D
01-12-2007, 10:26 AM
In under a year and a half, this country will elect its 44th President. There are quite a few names out there representing both the GOP and the Democratic party, and I have listed some of them below. Most of them have political track records and are well known (some positively and some negatively) but there are a few in each party that I am not as familiar with, as I am sure is the case with some of you. as well.

I was a registered Democrat for most of my adult life and finally realized that most of my ideals just don't fall in line with the Democratic Party. In late 2003, I changed over to the GOP and have not regretted my decision. However, I do not vote strictly in accordance with party lines and I never have. I give every candidate fair consideration while taking a good hard look at their platform, their positions on abortion, the death penalty, taxes, etc., weighing their pros and cons and vote accordingly. Over the years, I have been involved in numerous campaigns representing both parties and am going to continue to keep an open (but cautious) mind when it comes to voting for a candidate to hold the highest office in the land.

Who, in your opinion, has a legitimate shot at becoming our next President? If any of you can share some knowledge of a candidate from your particular state, it would be most appreciated. Thus far, those who have expressed interest are as follows:

Possible Democrat Candidates:

John Edwards (former North Carolina Senator)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York Senator)
Al Gore (former Vice President)
John F. Kerry (Massachusetts Senator)
Joe Biden (Delaware Senator)
Wesley Clark (Retired General)
Howard Dean (DNC Chairman)
Bill Richardson (New Mexico Governor)
Tom Daschle (Former South Dakota Senator)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin Senator)
Mike Warner (former Virginia Governor)
Dennis Kucenich (Ohio Congressman)
Tom Vilsack (Iowa Governor)

Possible Republican Candidates:

Rudy Giuliani (former New York City Mayor)
Condoleezza Rice (U.S. Secretary of State)
John McCain (Arizona Senator)
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House)
Jeb Bush (Florida Governor)
Bill First (Tennessee Senator)
George Allen (Virginia Senator)
George Pataki (New York Govenor)
Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (Arkansas Governor)
Sam Brownback (Kansas Senator)

For me, a resounding NO is given to all of the Demos except for Bill Richardson, Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucenich, as I don't know enough about them to make a fair assessment. A big NO is also given to all of the GOP'rs except for Rudy Giuliani (he is my frontrunner right now), John McCain (my jury is still out on him, as I feel he rides the fence a little too much), George Allen, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Again, I simply do not know enough about Allen, Huckabee and Brownback to give them a fair shake.

Tom daschle has already said he wont run for president. Being orginally from the midwest and as a former Iowa residnet I would like Tom Vilsack

sumo
01-12-2007, 11:05 PM
If we elect Hillary Clinton it will mean that for a minimum of 24 straight years we as a country have not been capable of looking beyond two families to occupy our most important office - the Bushes and the Clintons

I have massive excruciating almost suffocating Bush and Clinton fatigue -- please new blood - any blood not from these 2 lines of royalty

I will take Obama, McCain, HTGAL, doesn't matter -- just as long as their last name is not Bush or Clinton

Black@Gold Forever32
01-12-2007, 11:06 PM
If we elect Hillary Clinton it will mean that for a minimum of 24 straight years we as a country are have not been capable of looking beyond two families for presidential candidates - the Bushes and the Clintons

Thats true. I wouldn't vote for Hillary and I hope she doesn't get elected.

Maidenarcher
01-13-2007, 09:21 AM
Okay ..now I am hurt that I didnt even get a consideration!


LLT, I think I would definitely vote for you if you were in the running......Seriously....

SteelCityMan786
01-13-2007, 09:23 AM
If I was eligible to vote next election for President(Which I won't be), I'd like to see what Rudy Giuliani can do as President.

Preacher
01-16-2007, 11:29 PM
Very true....I hate how politics tries to simpify everything down into black & white, easily processed talking points. Sometimes it goes deeper then "The economy sucks now"

This is a great post...

I actually would be for going back to the OLD style debates. DO NOT TELEVISE THE DEBATES.

Have the debate is a empty room and then, Publish them in the papers. As a result, we would probably get more thoughtl out answers, rather then sound bites.

Suitanim
01-17-2007, 05:17 PM
Now this is a topic I can be serious about, and part of what I legitimately miss about MB's.

Anyway, I'm going for McCain. First off, whomever wins office will automatically be a War president, and I want a true vet who understands the the intricacies of the military bureaucracies, and has a real idea of how valuable Iraq is in the long-term. McCain does. Even if they end up with some kind of watered-down Democracy, it will have a monumental ripple effect for the foreseeable future. If you set oil aside, the stabilizing effect of having another ME Arab Nation allied to us is huge, and can be balanced with Israel if Condi can make her pet project of getting a Palestinian State in place. It's worth a LOT to stabilize the middle east, and McCain is the best man to see that possibility through.

Economically, Iraq is a gateway into the next "emerging market". There was the dot com boom, and it was replaced by the housing boom, and it's replacement could be open ME markets. It was interesting that Michael Moore positioned the former as "The spoils of war" when in fact it's just a possible positive by-product of a Democratic (or reasonable facsimile thereof) Iraq.

The religious right overplayed their hand with Bush, and McCain brings a better balance to the party. He's certainly not perfect, but he's the best of the bunch.

As far as Dem's, I think Clark and Biden are interesting. Obama says the right things, but I need to know more. Kucinich is just unelectable. He's awful. He lives in a Utopian bubble, and would just ruin the country in a week.

Finally, when talking about the standard of living from the 50's and today, there is NO comparison. In the 50's, The US WAS the big dog. There was no chance it would last forever, but we were sold-out by our own leaders (I lay a lot of blame at Reagan's feet, for the Kool-Aid drinkers who think I'm some kind of conservative shill) which hastened the collapse. A good example? I'm in my 30's, and my mom didn't have to work. It was almost unthinkable for HER mom to work. How many families have that luxury now? The standard of living has stayed high at the price of adding a second income to most families, a second income that wasn't necessary before. Someone also brought up the fact that US citizens OWN a lot of stuff. That's no measure of success, but it is a symptom of a disease. When "keeping up with the Jones'" reaches critical mass in a conspicuously consuming society, something has to give...ergo, mom goes to work, but only to ensure that Sally and Bobby have Ralph Lauren shirts and XBox 360's and get to skip the bus and get dropped at private school in a Lexus SUV.

Preacher
01-19-2007, 02:07 AM
Hey Suit..

Pretty good post.

The only place I disagree with you is about the religious right overplaying thier hand. Actaully, I think within the GOP, the opposite happened. The social conservative Christians has recognized that this current president will only bring up social values when it is election time.

As a result, I think many of them are going to be reluctant or vey leary of conserv. GOP candidates, especially ones that tack to the right in the primaries.

The only ones that will really win the socially conserv. christians are those that have a long history of conser. votes on social issues.

Funny, I think the dems are feeling the same way in the exact opposite direction with the DNC.

I really wonder what this election cycle will bring. Over time, if this continues, it may lead to the emergence of a third party.

Hines0wnz
01-19-2007, 11:15 AM
I really wonder what this election cycle will bring. Over time, if this continues, it may lead to the emergence of a third party.

We very much need a major third party. I hope I am alive long enough to see it through.

Hines0wnz
01-19-2007, 11:22 AM
Finally, when talking about the standard of living from the 50's and today, there is NO comparison. In the 50's, The US WAS the big dog. There was no chance it would last forever, but we were sold-out by our own leaders (I lay a lot of blame at Reagan's feet, for the Kool-Aid drinkers who think I'm some kind of conservative shill) which hastened the collapse. A good example? I'm in my 30's, and my mom didn't have to work. It was almost unthinkable for HER mom to work. How many families have that luxury now? The standard of living has stayed high at the price of adding a second income to most families, a second income that wasn't necessary before. Someone also brought up the fact that US citizens OWN a lot of stuff. That's no measure of success, but it is a symptom of a disease. When "keeping up with the Jones'" reaches critical mass in a conspicuously consuming society, something has to give...ergo, mom goes to work, but only to ensure that Sally and Bobby have Ralph Lauren shirts and XBox 360's and get to skip the bus and get dropped at private school in a Lexus SUV.

I am not disagreeing with you but both my parents worked so we could have family vacations and a few extra things. My dad wouldnt allow us to have all the latest trendy stuff because it would be garbage basically. Plus, if you have multiple siblings (I have 3 sisters), can one income pay for all the college tuition? Hardly. Most families live in suburbs of cities where it costs a little more to live sure but that is the how and where we live today. In addition, remember the women's lib movement back in the 70s? Yeah, I think that has some influence on why mom is working a job today too. So it isnt always about PS3s, Sean John clothes and what car daddy will by you for your sweet sixteenth birthday. It is also about how our society has changed socially as well. :wink02:

Preacher
01-19-2007, 03:06 PM
I am not disagreeing with you but both my parents worked so we could have family vacations and a few extra things. My dad wouldnt allow us to have all the latest trendy stuff because it would be garbage basically. Plus, if you have multiple siblings (I have 3 sisters), can one income pay for all the college tuition? Hardly. Most families live in suburbs of cities where it costs a little more to live sure but that is the how and where we live today. In addition, remember the women's lib movement back in the 70s? Yeah, I think that has some influence on why mom is working a job today too. So it isnt always about PS3s, Sean John clothes and what car daddy will by you for your sweet sixteenth birthday. It is also about how our society has changed socially as well. :wink02:

Okay... My response to this post will either cause mass hysteria.. or if people stop and think it through... an interesting debate.

When the women's lib movement motivated many women into the work place, it changed many things about our economy.

Now... again, I am not speaking against the movement, nor against equal rights for women, just the economic implication of what has happened, follow me on this.

During the 50's and 60's, a family could survive decently on one income. The reason was simple supply and demand. There was not a lot of money chasing after goods. As a result, the goods had to have a low enough cost to be bought at a level which would keep the company afloat.

When the second spouse entered the workplace from the same household, the amount of money available to spend almost doubled every month. The result was a lot of money chasing goods. The natural response to that is inflationary. Higher cost for the same goods. The cycle has ran itself to the point were now, in many places, both spouses MUST work in order to have the same standard of living enjoyed by one income. What was once a luxury, has now again become a necessity.

Indy_Steelers
01-19-2007, 05:30 PM
of course im a homer but i think richardson will be one of the best candidates. unfortunately he is hispanic and speaks spanish so the extreme right will probably spend millions to smear him and put the fear of us becoming a spanish speaking nation with open boarders if he does get on the ticket. he did a fine job as energy secretary under clinton. he is very respected in washington and the national media. has appeared on countless national media panels (including FOX) for his insight and expertise. although democratic, he appeals to many republicans (tax cuts, supports death penalty, crackdown on drugs, on the flipside our last governor rep. gary johnson was for legalization). around here he has been called a rep in dems clothing.

http://www.issues2000.org/Bill_Richardson.htm this site will tell you all you want to know about his stances on various topics:

Bill Richardson on Abortion
Resist any effort to weaken a woman's right to choose. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Budget & Economy
Grow the trade link to Mexico and attract Hollywood business. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Civil Rights .
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.

Bill Richardson on Crime .
Toughened DWI and sex offender laws. (Jan 2004)
Domestic violence incidents start with drinking. (Jan 2004)
Mandatory jail time, especially for repeat offenders. (Oct 2002)
Supports death penalty: zero tolerance for heinous crimes. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)

Bill Richardson on Drugs
Crack down on illegal drug labs. (Jan 2004)
No legalization: drugs play an insidious role in crime. (Oct 2002)
Drug Courts and treatment instead of incarceration. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Education
Equip every 7th grader with a laptop computer. (Jan 2004)
Increase the salary of school teachers. (Jan 2004)
A plan that can reach straightforward education goals. (Jan 2004)
Charter schools show tremendous promise. (Jan 2004)
Expand the lottery scholarship program for college students. (Jan 2004)
No vouchers: they abandon public schools. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)

Bill Richardson on Energy & Oil
$6M for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. (Jan 2004)
Develop alternative energy, including wind & solar. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Environment
Expand and create new state parks. (Jan 2004)
Develop a comprehensive water management plan. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Free Trade
Expand regional trade with Chihuahua. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Government Reform
Focus on eliminating waste and fraud from public spending. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Health Care
Secure lower prescription drug costs for seniors. (Jan 2004)
Focus on raising childhood immunization rates. (Jan 2004)
Increase access to affordable health care. (Jan 2004)
Consolidate mental health and substance abuse therapy needs. (Jan 2004)
Restrain Medicaid costs and maintain benefits. (Jan 2004)
Affordable access to healthcare for all New Mexicans. (Oct 2002)
New Mexico Cares: invest in our health. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Homeland Security
Spend $250K annually to fight base closures. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Jobs
Film industry initiatives create jobs. (Jan 2004)

Bill Richardson on Tax Reform
Continue to cut taxes and reform the tax code. (Jan 2004)
Reduce income tax; create Taxpayer Bill of Rights. (Oct 2002)

Bill Richardson on Technology
Allocate capital to education and water projects. (Jan 2004)


Bill Richardson on War & Peace
Click here for the full quote on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
Homeland Security Department at federal AND state level. (Oct 2002)



Equip every 7th grader with a laptop computer.
Increase the salary of school teachers.
He wants to do this and cut taxes? NOT going to happen.

Where is he going to get the money for all this? He is going to have to raise taxes like a mother to make this happen. I hope the fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org) and school vouchers will be available by then. Although he is against vouchers because he says "they abandon public schools". That is not what vouchers do; they give the choice of the parent to send their kids to schools that will perform. Even if he is right on vouchers, I do not see how that is a bad thing. Kids should be in school to learn not so that government workers can have cush jobs. There are also a lot of things on this list that the government, according to the Constitution, should not be involved in. For one, health care.

Indy_Steelers
01-19-2007, 05:33 PM
Okay... My response to this post will either cause mass hysteria.. or if people stop and think it through... an interesting debate.

When the women's lib movement motivated many women into the work place, it changed many things about our economy.

Now... again, I am not speaking against the movement, nor against equal rights for women, just the economic implication of what has happened, follow me on this.

During the 50's and 60's, a family could survive decently on one income. The reason was simple supply and demand. There was not a lot of money chasing after goods. As a result, the goods had to have a low enough cost to be bought at a level which would keep the company afloat.

When the second spouse entered the workplace from the same household, the amount of money available to spend almost doubled every month. The result was a lot of money chasing goods. The natural response to that is inflationary. Higher cost for the same goods. The cycle has ran itself to the point were now, in many places, both spouses MUST work in order to have the same standard of living enjoyed by one income. What was once a luxury, has now again become a necessity.


OH MY! He hit the nail on the head.:thumbsup:

Preacher
01-20-2007, 02:14 AM
Equip every 7th grader with a laptop computer.
Increase the salary of school teachers.
He wants to do this and cut taxes? NOT going to happen.

Where is he going to get the money for all this? He is going to have to raise taxes like a mother to make this happen. I hope the fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org) and school vouchers will be available by then. Although he is against vouchers because he says "they abandon public schools". That is not what vouchers do; they give the choice of the parent to send their kids to schools that will perform. Even if he is right on vouchers, I do not see how that is a bad thing. Kids should be in school to learn not so that government workers can have cush jobs. There are also a lot of things on this list that the government, according to the Constitution, should not be involved in. For one, health care.


Man are we ever in agreement with that!!

Preacher
01-20-2007, 11:51 AM
Let me by a little more historically accurate.

Women came into the workplace during WWII to support the war effort. Rosey the Riviter and the like. However, for the most part, they left the workplace until the late 60's (in general).

tony hipchest
01-20-2007, 12:39 PM
Equip every 7th grader with a laptop computer.
Increase the salary of school teachers.
He wants to do this and cut taxes? NOT going to happen.

Where is he going to get the money for all this? He is going to have to raise taxes like a mother to make this happen.

not in new mexico. these are state initiatives, not nation wide agendas.

Stlrs4Life
01-20-2007, 04:08 PM
Bill Richardson on Jobs
Film industry initiatives create jobs. (Jan 2004)


??????????????????????????

Stlrs4Life
01-20-2007, 04:09 PM
Okay... My response to this post will either cause mass hysteria.. or if people stop and think it through... an interesting debate.

When the women's lib movement motivated many women into the work place, it changed many things about our economy.

Now... again, I am not speaking against the movement, nor against equal rights for women, just the economic implication of what has happened, follow me on this.

During the 50's and 60's, a family could survive decently on one income. The reason was simple supply and demand. There was not a lot of money chasing after goods. As a result, the goods had to have a low enough cost to be bought at a level which would keep the company afloat.

When the second spouse entered the workplace from the same household, the amount of money available to spend almost doubled every month. The result was a lot of money chasing goods. The natural response to that is inflationary. Higher cost for the same goods. The cycle has ran itself to the point were now, in many places, both spouses MUST work in order to have the same standard of living enjoyed by one income. What was once a luxury, has now again become a necessity.


Definately agree.:thumbsup:

tony hipchest
01-20-2007, 04:35 PM
Bill Richardson on Jobs
Film industry initiatives create jobs. (Jan 2004)


??????????????????????????i used to work catering for concerts, video, film and commercial shoots here in nm. off the top of my head i can think of scorpions, boys 2 men, and sara evans video's that were filmed at white sands along with the young guns movies and it was very good for my local economy.

richardson has given tax breaks to hollywood that has attracted them to our state over others. i have seen this work first hand. snta fe has a booming film industry. i know these things dont seem like much, but we are talking about the 5th largest state in the union with a population of only 2,000,000.

again were talking about state initiatives, not national agendas.

fansince'76
01-20-2007, 06:47 PM
All I know is if the Democrats want to take the White House back in '08, they won't nominate Hillary. She is simply way too polarizing of a candidate - people will turn out in droves for the express reason of voting AGAINST her, not necessarily voting FOR anyone in particular.

Preacher
01-20-2007, 06:55 PM
All I know is if the Democrats want to take the White House back in '08, they won't nominate Hillary. She is simply way too polarizing of a candidate - people will turn out in droves for the express reason of voting AGAINST her, not necessarily voting FOR anyone in particular.

Your right.

I for one am very frustrated with the GOP... However, if they nominate Hillary, I will be contributing to defeat her. The LAST thing i EVER want is another Clinton in the white house.

Indy_Steelers
01-20-2007, 07:34 PM
richardson has given tax breaks to hollywood.

great, more tax breaks for the rich.:wink02:

Hines0wnz
01-20-2007, 08:10 PM
With all the candidates running, its going to be a logjam of BS for a while.

Hines0wnz
01-21-2007, 07:47 PM
Brownback, Richardson and Clinton are now in....anyone heard from Rep. Kitchen Sink yet?

Elvis
01-22-2007, 07:37 AM
I dont know if anyone knew this or not but January is the month to remember all the little aborted children that havent a chance in life. I Will Never Vote for or support anyone that does this or thinks that it is ok. NEVER!!!

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-22-2007, 01:30 PM
As a native of Illinois...I shudder when people bring up Senator Barack Obama ....He has NO RECORD what-so-ever yet is a potential candidate....ask ANYONE "why" they like him and you get the same blank-faced answer. "He cant be as bad as what we have"....If the Dems try to pull a style over substance fallacy against the American public...Somebody needs to give them a nation-wide wedgy... pulled up to their ears!!!

Senator Barack Obama =Trevor Newsworthy from "Fresh Prince of Bel Air"

Jeremy
01-22-2007, 04:45 PM
As a native of Illinois...I shudder when people bring up Senator Barack Obama ....He has NO RECORD what-so-ever yet is a potential candidate....ask ANYONE "why" they like him and you get the same blank-faced answer. "He cant be as bad as what we have"....If the Dems try to pull a style over substance fallacy against the American public...Somebody needs to give them a nation-wide wedgy... pulled up to their ears!!!

Senator Barack Obama =Trevor Newsworthy from "Fresh Prince of Bel Air"

Style over substance got us where we are today. What's unfortunate is that both parties seem to have really embraced that idea and we're now faced with the most ragtag group of Presidential candidates in recent memory.

Hawk Believer
01-22-2007, 05:40 PM
Your right.
The LAST thing i EVER want is another Clinton in the white house.

It would be odd if our line of presidents went Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton. Not exactly what the founding fathers probably envisioned. Course we have had two Adams and Roosevelts.

Hammer67
01-22-2007, 08:58 PM
It would be odd if our line of presidents went Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton. Not exactly what the founding fathers probably envisioned. Course we have had two Adams and Roosevelts.

As an interesting aside, I have been reading up on Washington and in his fairwell address, he warned against divisive movements like opposing political parties. Interesting to me...

He is also considered one of the greatest leaders in history largely because he ceded power after the Revolutionary War. At the time, everyone expected him to assume a military dictatorship of the US in that he controlled the Continental Army. But he relinquished control to Congress and retired. A first in the modern era.

Hammer67
01-22-2007, 08:59 PM
It would be odd if our line of presidents went Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton. Not exactly what the founding fathers probably envisioned. Course we have had two Adams and Roosevelts.

As an interesting aside, I have been reading up on Washington and in his fairwell address, he warned against divisive movements like opposing political parties. Interesting to me...

He is also considered one of the greatest leaders in history largely because he ceded power after the Revolutionary War. At the time, everyone expected him to assume a military dictatorship of the US in that he controlled the Continental Army. But he relinquished control to Congress and retired. A noble deed.

Suitanim
01-22-2007, 09:19 PM
I am not disagreeing with you but both my parents worked so we could have family vacations and a few extra things. My dad wouldnt allow us to have all the latest trendy stuff because it would be garbage basically. Plus, if you have multiple siblings (I have 3 sisters), can one income pay for all the college tuition? Hardly. Most families live in suburbs of cities where it costs a little more to live sure but that is the how and where we live today. In addition, remember the women's lib movement back in the 70s? Yeah, I think that has some influence on why mom is working a job today too. So it isnt always about PS3s, Sean John clothes and what car daddy will by you for your sweet sixteenth birthday. It is also about how our society has changed socially as well. :wink02:

It's all tied together. C'mon, it's obvious...look at gas prices. Moving the prices up to $3.50+ wasn't some nefarious "New World Order" plot, it was just desensitizing the American public. In the wake of Iraq and Katrina, it was a chance to jack prices to an unacceptable price, hold for a bit, then adjust the prices back down to new, artificially high (but) accepted levels.

How many people here saw gas hit $2.10 a gallon and said to themselves "Finally! Affordable gas"?.

You've been duped. The corporate machine just moved the "acceptable" price of gas up about .60-.90 higher, and made most Americans willing participants in the ruse...

lamberts-lost-tooth
01-24-2007, 10:57 AM
Vote for Hillary!!!???


I recently saw a bumber sticker that said ..IF YOUR LIFE IS GOOD..THANK CLINTON...IF YOUR LIFE SUCKS..BLAME BUSH! Well..I would like to take this time to thank President William Jefferson Clinton.

Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?

Thank you for teaching my 8 year old about oral sex. I had really planned to wait until he was a little older to discuss it with him, but now he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.

Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have to know is what the meaning of "is" is. It really is great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while the other one person involved does NOT have sex.

Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie "Wag the Dog" could be plausible after all.

Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful, and John Kennedy look moral.

Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.

Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment's from the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other "Clinton" scandals.

Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations" carefully disguised as necessary trips...and while I'm on the subject... Thank you, also, for "finding" millions of dollars (I really didn't need it in the first place, and I can't think of a more deserving group of recipients for my hard-earned tax dollars) for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family and your cronies logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any other administration.

Now that you've left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have them rejoin society. (Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of Arkansas)

Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I'm sure that Laura Bush didn't like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the "housewarming gifts" you've received from your "friends."

Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House for vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out. I also appreciate removing all of that excess weight (China, silverware, linen, towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight manuals, etc.) out of Air Force 1. The weight savings means burning less fuel, thus less tax dollars spent on jet fuel. Thank you!

And please ensure that Hillary enjoys the $8 million dollar advance for her "tell-all" book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn't pay!

The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn't Americans know the real truth?

PS. Please pass along a special thank you to Al Gore for "inventing" the Internet, without which I would not be able to send this wonderful, factual e-mail.

AND THE REST OF THE STORY Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan," which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?)

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that?

WE DO!

It's common knowledge that for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff -- and, this is all perfectly legal!

83-Steelers-43
01-24-2007, 02:38 PM
Senator Kerry to Skip 2008 Presidential Race: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246382,00.html

HometownGal
01-28-2007, 07:13 PM
The transition has already begun............:jawdrop: :yuck:

http://content.jibjab.com/content/fc504a89f530072aa42be097a9e66a4a293b79d4

boLT fan
01-28-2007, 07:26 PM
Hilary Clinton is a stupid ****.

I'm all for a woman becoming president, but if it this stupid ignorant douchebag, I can guarentee there won't be another woman president.

Preacher
01-29-2007, 04:47 AM
Let me say in a more... reverant manner,

I beleive that one of the best world leaders was a woman. Thank you Maggie Thatcher.

I would vote for an American version of Thatcher ANYDAY. Clinton? Yeah, right.

sumo
01-29-2007, 01:22 PM
As an interesting aside, I have been reading up on Washington and in his fairwell address, he warned against divisive movements like opposing political parties. Interesting to me...

He is also considered one of the greatest leaders in history largely because he ceded power after the Revolutionary War. At the time, everyone expected him to assume a military dictatorship of the US in that he controlled the Continental Army. But he relinquished control to Congress and retired. A noble deed.

With regards to Washington - it was much deeper - I know this is off topic and I don't want to hijack the thread, but one of the options that almost became a reality during the const convention - was the idea of giving most of the fed authority to the executive branch of Govt - the people would elect a "noble king" -- after all, Washington would be a noble king and the people in their collective wisdom, would rationally elect someone with similiar character and credentials each time - George Washington, to his credit, shot this idea down and was the champion of the decentralized loose union model that prevailed with all of the legislative power being given to congress and the states ....IMHO, this is what makes George Washington the greatest pres of all - look at the characters we have running now - can you imagine the collosal damage that would ensue if any of them were given the powers of a "king?"

SteelCityMan786
01-29-2007, 04:56 PM
Hilary Clinton is a stupid ****.

I'm all for a woman becoming president, but if it this stupid ignorant douchebag, I can guarentee there won't be another woman president.

That's why I'm going to the Rudi way. If I was aloud to vote I'd be powering the PA Republican Vote.

Preacher
01-29-2007, 10:51 PM
That's why I'm going to the Rudi way. If I was aloud to vote I'd be powering the PA Republican Vote.

I doubt Rudi will make it out of the primaries. He isn't conservative enough.

83-Steelers-43
01-30-2007, 04:09 AM
Hilary Clinton is a stupid ****.

I'm all for a woman becoming president, but if it this stupid ignorant douchebag, I can guarentee there won't be another woman president.

So what your saying is you won't be voting for Hillary? :wink02:

Hawk Believer
01-31-2007, 12:43 AM
i used to work catering for concerts, video, film and commercial shoots here in nm. off the top of my head i can think of scorpions, boys 2 men, and sara evans video's that were filmed at white sands along with the young guns movies and it was very good for my local economy.

richardson has given tax breaks to hollywood that has attracted them to our state over others. i have seen this work first hand. snta fe has a booming film industry. i know these things dont seem like much, but we are talking about the 5th largest state in the union with a population of only 2,000,000.

again were talking about state initiatives, not national agendas.

How come Richardson didn't keep us out of Iraq? :wink02:

Anyone know how Richardson's fund raising is going right now?

tony hipchest
01-31-2007, 07:24 PM
How come Richardson didn't keep us out of Iraq? :wink02:

Anyone know how Richardson's fund raising is going right now?he did. atleast as the secretary of energy under the clinton org. dont know if hes started any fund raising campaigns. im not even sure if hes gonna throw his hat into the ring.

interesting fact. during the clinton/ monica lewinsky scandal, it was richardsons office clinton wanted to have her transfered to. she refused. looking at richardson, he probably didnt have a cigar she was willing to "smoke"

Hines0wnz
02-01-2007, 01:08 PM
He should just quit now.

Biden explains, apologizes for comments

WASHINGTON - Backpedaling furiously, Sen. Joe Biden said he really meant to say "fresh" instead of "clean" in describing Democratic presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record).

Appearing on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" late Wednesday, Biden said: "Look, the other part of this thing that got me in trouble is using the word clean. I should have said fresh. What I meant was that he's got new ideas, he's a new guy on the block ... "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_en_tv/biden2008_19;_ylt=AtptowP0Qk_SYC016CkpLbFpu6cv;_yl u=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Hawk Believer
02-01-2007, 07:55 PM
I have been reading up on Richardson. An intriguing guy. But the baseball draft story and Los Alamos seem like things that would be used to swift boat him if he got out of the primaries.

tony hipchest
02-01-2007, 08:13 PM
I have been reading up on Richardson. An intriguing guy. But the baseball draft story and Los Alamos seem like things that would be used to swift boat him if he got out of the primaries.ughhh. los alamos. :dang: i hate to pin that on richardson cause thats something that couldve (and shouldve never) happened despite who was gov.

i also liked our previous governor who was a republican, yet didnt alway follow party lines:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/06/legalizing.drugs.01/

New Mexico governor calls for legalizing drugs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this story:

Drug legalization called irresponsible

Johnson acknowledges own marijuana use of marijuana, cocaine

RELATED STORIES, SITES


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


October 6, 1999
Web posted at: 12:11 a.m. EDT (0411 GMT)

From staff and wire reports

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is now the highest elected official to advocate the legalization of drugs. Johnson said everything from marijuana to heroin ought to be legalized because he believes the U.S. anti-drug effort is an expensive bust.

"Control it, regulate it, tax it," Johnson said of recreational drugs. "If you legalize it we might actually have a healthier society."

Johnson, a Republican, said the nation's war on drugs has been a multibillion-dollar failure that throws too many people in prison.

"I'm not pro-drug here. I'm against drugs," Johnson told the libertarian Cato Institute on Tuesday. "Should you go to jail for just doing drugs? I say no. I say you shouldn't."

By at least one estimate, the United States spends some $40 billion each year trying to intercept drug shipments and arrest drug dealers and drug users.

But despite all the federal and local law enforcement efforts, only about 5 percent to 15 percent of the illegal drugs coming into the United States are actually seized. The rest of the drugs feed a $200 billion a year illicit business that caters to an estimated 13 million Americans each month.



"we're cool" :cool:

Preacher
02-06-2007, 01:26 AM
You know..

I am so tired of all this...

I just want politics to go away!!!

Stainless Steel
02-07-2007, 06:10 PM
I vote every time I get a chance, but sometimes I feel like I am voting for the lesser of two evils. OK, how about some political humor:

Have you heard about the new Hillary bumber sticker that is bipartisoned. It reads "RUN, HILLARY, RUN !!!" Democrats place it on the rear bumber like normal, Republicans place it on the front bumper.

Now you can insert any name you want on this joke and it'll work fine. :)

rich4eagle
02-08-2007, 07:15 AM
George Allen got beat by the democrat Webb for Virginia's senate seat..........and Mark Warner a democrat and former Gov of Va who in my view would have been the best candidate of all..decided not to run..........so there are two you can cross off

Stlrs4Life
02-08-2007, 01:24 PM
Rudi decided to run, he's our equal to Hillary.

floodcitygirl
02-08-2007, 01:35 PM
Rudi decided to run, he's our equal to Hillary.Dom...you know I'm crazy about ya, but Rudi would have to never turn left again in his lifetime and still couldn't balance out Hillary when it comes to social issues.

tony hipchest
06-01-2010, 11:21 PM
Guiliani is a joke. hes a hero for doing his job and walking around with dirt all over himself, riding on the tragedy of 9/11. totally offensive. Before 9/11 people were laughing at him for his affair that broke up his marriage.

too soon for 2008, but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama, this generations JFK, without the sex addiction.

you think Obama is in "trouble" in Illinois??? the guy has IT written all over him and is generating more enthusiasm than any Democrat since RFK. they'll be a call to name him on the frickin ticket in 2008 but hopefully he'll have the sense to wait.

I agree Warner is a solid choice. And i also agree Guiliani would be a NY disaster the same way the Sainted Mario Cuomo would have been for the Democrats.

McCain would be unbeatable as the nominee but Republicans are too stupid to nominate him. im hoping they nominate of right wing freak like Rick Sanitarium ( I thought of Sanitarynapkin but Sanitarium is a little more subtle)

good call. :cookie:

:point: but in 2012 watch out for Barack Obama

That's good, really. Let's see if he's still a Senator before you nominate him to take a crushing loss.

Mark Warner is the best chances for the Dems. He's a Southern Governor with a solid track record on his state's economy. He's a better Governor than Bush was.

As for the Repubs, run Rudy please. I'd like to see you betray your family values image by running the man who kept his mistress inside Gracie Manor while he was still mayor.

dumbass :doh:

Godfather
06-02-2010, 06:16 PM
Barack Obama, this generations JFK, without the sex addiction.

He's turning out to be this generation's Nixon.