02 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJayRichardson should run for President of Mexico. That's where his true allegiance is to.
I dislike what "McCain-Feingold," did to free speech during election
time. I'm not sure I can get past that, I do not have a clue yet who
I like enough to vote for, it is a mixed bag of good and bad for
everyone. I suppose it is really like that every year. On the Dem side
I like Joe Biden he seems level headed compared to the rest, the
guy I think is ...[text shortened]... he Rep but don't have a favorite yet, not sure I will have one either
I'm afraid.
Kelly
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by lovechiefsi think you should cut kirksey some slack. anybody can base their opinion of any candidate on ANYthing their blessed little pea-pickin' hearts desire. I, like the late John Lennon, base my vote on color of eyes.
because it is a perception fueled by a media which don't like politics to ignore them. The MSM feeds itself of candidates mistakes.Just remember Howard Dean in 2004. Why do you think that the only thing media people have come up with against Fred Thompson is him "being lazy" and his sexy wife? Cause they can't find anything else to criticize Thompson on. Senator Thompson scares them all because Senator Thompson is a pure conservative
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt's not sexism--it's auditory. Hillary is shrill. When she makes a point in a debate, dogs start screaming because their poor ears are bleeding.
Is this a sexism thing, or do you just not like Hillary?
Considering who you (as a country) just voted in twice, I can't imagine Hillary could possibly be any worse. Although, apparently rational decision making is not a strength of the American people either.....
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by slimjimAfter watching the Fox News roundtable last night with the Republican candidates (first Chris Wallace was asking tough questions... which was refreshing to see) I have to say I am turned off to Romney and Huckabee, can't see either one occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
No. He is the worst of the lot. His policies concerning immigration and taxes tick me off.
McCain pissed me off with his responses on immigration and taxes, although his reasoning on opposing Bush's tax cuts (he wanted to know what spending cuts were going to be made to offset them, somewhat of a BS answer) pissed me off less.
Thompson came out looking like the true conservative of the bunch, although I could vote for Rudy. I could even vote for McCain if he comes down to the candidate, I might have doubts but he would be preferable to anything the Dems are offering up.
Ron Paul would be the only 'Republican' I absolutely couldn't vote for. Two reasons, he isn't a conservative, he's a libertarian and second, I'll be able to ice skate in Hell before the American people would make him the POTUS.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by kmax87🙂 I wonder who they favor left or right wing people in your press?
From an Australian news perspective (not that we matter~ I do get that) you would not know that there was a republican candidate.
In some ways the only person looking like a republican candidate is John Edwards.
Kelly
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716I liked that they were asked hard questions too, no wonder the DNC
After watching the Fox News roundtable last night with the Republican candidates (first Chris Wallace was asking tough questions... which was refreshing to see) I have to say I am turned off to Romney and Huckabee, can't see either one occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
McCain pissed me off with his responses on immigration and taxes, although his rea ...[text shortened]... , I'll be able to ice skate in Hell before the American people would make him the POTUS.
wanted nothing to do with Fox during the election, the cowards!
Kelly
07 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I said to my wife, Chris Wallace can out of the gate asking tough questions about taxes and tax cuts. Romney gave a weak answer and so did Huckabee. I'd like to see the Dems sit down in a similiar format and answer the tough questions .... something they are avoiding at all times. They rather rally around the themes of CHANGE or EXPERIENCE
I liked that they were asked hard questions too, no wonder the DNC
wanted nothing to do with Fox during the election, the cowards!
Kelly
Of the hour of the show I watched (turned it off after immigration was discussed as thats a hot issue for me), I did notice that Huckabee, Romney and McCain were getting most the talking time, Rudy and Fred seemed to have to fight to get talking time
07 Jan 08
I watched both debates in their entirety. I was struck but the stark contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats are talking about change, they are talking about health care, they are talking about the fight for the middle class, their's is an agenda driven by hope. The republicans were the party of fear that night. Between McCains fear of radical islam, and Huckabees fear of the US not being a Christian nation, and the rest predicting doom and gloom over immmagration, there wasn't anything positive in their message. Good luck in Nov. 2008 because they are going to need it.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerNo, the Dems have only this talk about CHANGE ... what are they going to CHANGE? All they know is tax and spend, tax and spend and bigger government and trying to redistribute wealth (everyone's wealth but their own) Thats been their answer to everything for the last 50 years since Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society... so where the heck is that CHANGE they are so fervent about?
I watched both debates in their entirety. I was struck but the stark contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats are talking about change, they are talking about health care, they are talking about the fight for the middle class, their's is an agenda driven by hope. The republicans were the party of fear that night. Between McCains fear ...[text shortened]... anything positive in their message. Good luck in Nov. 2008 because they are going to need it.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716the national debt ceiling has been raised 3 times in the last 30 years Once under Reagan (your God) and twice under Bush (your demi God). The only President in the last 80 plus years to balance the budget was a Democrat. The argument that Dems are the tax and spenders just doesn't fly.
No, the Dems have only this talk about CHANGE ... what are they going to CHANGE? All they know is tax and spend, tax and spend and bigger government and trying to redistribute wealth (everyone's wealth but their own) Thats been their answer to everything for the last 50 years since Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society... so where the heck is that CHANGE they are so fervent about?
And what's wrong with redistribution of wealth? It has worked for you and your family (I'm assuming you went to public school). Did you drive to work today on a well paved road. How many people do you know that have had small pox? Did you go to college? Was it a state school? If not, did you get a pell grant? Know anyone who did? How many people in your nieghborhood are suffering from polio? How did your family survive the great depression? Gosh I'm sure glad we don't ask our men and women in the armed forces to provide their own body armor (okay bad example). Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerYou failed to answer my question... where is the Change for the Democratic Presidential candidates....? What are they going to do different ? Socialism/communism? Maybe thats what they call CHANGE
the national debt ceiling has been raised 3 times in the last 30 years Once under Reagan (your God) and twice under Bush (your demi God). The only President in the last 80 plus years to balance the budget was a Democrat. The argument that Dems are the tax and spenders just doesn't fly.
And what's wrong with redistribution of wealth? It has worked for you ...[text shortened]... n body armor (okay bad example). Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716how about we end this sensless war in Iraq, and bring our troops home where they belong (should help to save billions). How's about we solve the health care crisis in America. We are the only industrialised nation without a national health care system. Why have we waited so long to raise the cafe standards? Why arn't we funding research to end our dependence on fossil fuels? How come we have allowed companies to ship our good paying jobs overseas. Those are the changes the Dems are talking about. But you wouldn't know, because you are all too busy listening to chicken little say the sky is falling. Wake the F up Republicans do not have your best interest at heart.
You failed to answer my question... where is the Change for the Democratic Presidential candidates....? What are they going to do different ? Socialism/communism? Maybe thats what they call CHANGE
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerYou still failed to answer the question... If we bring the troops home from Iraq, which only Kuchinch would do immediately, we still need to have a military... here .... or there your not going to save money.. unless you weaken the military like the idiots Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did.
how about we end this sensless war in Iraq, and bring our troops home where they belong (should help to save billions). How's about we solve the health care crisis in America. We are the only industrialised nation without a national health care system. Why have we waited so long to raise the cafe standards? Why arn't we funding research to end our dependence ...[text shortened]... le say the sky is falling. Wake the F up Republicans do not have your best interest at heart.
We aren't getting any where here, guess we just have to disagree and see who wins in November. Edwards won't be the Democratic candidate by the way... it will be someone named Hillary. And she is a recipe for another term for the Republicans... (smiles) Hell, even a CNN/Gallup poll showed 17% of Democrats wouldn't vote for her.
07 Jan 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716first, the military is just a small fraction of the cost of the war
You still failed to answer the question... If we bring the troops home from Iraq, which only Kuchinch would do immediately, we still need to have a military... here .... or there your not going to save money.. unless you weaken the military like the idiots Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did.
We aren't getting any where here, guess we just have to disag ...[text shortened]... icans... (smiles) Hell, even a CNN/Gallup poll showed 17% of Democrats wouldn't vote for her.
second the military that Bill Clinton weakened was by the design of one Richard Cheney. Oh yes that's correct boy's and girl's. Bill Clinton followed the plan laid out by Dick Cheney as Secretary of Defense under Bush 1. If you don't like the military we have blame Cheney it was his idea.