Wanna hear from our next President? - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

usafreedom3 · 08-11-2007, 01:06 PM

Janett_Reno · 08-11-2007, 02:47 PM

He is the best shot for the Republicans. He has probs but if he can skate around them and unite the Repub base, then he has a shot at Hills. They have dug up alot of dirt at the Univeresity Of TN on him and going thru some papers, he thought would probably never be checked or maybe just not thinking he would run for pres. He will have to take a stance on gay's and abortion and stop flip flopping on it.

If elected president, he would become the second president in U.S. history (after James Garfield) to belong to the Churches of Christ, a small, non-denominational Christian group.

I know that is not Baptist or Methodist but for some reason, some fear the word Catholic, why? I am not sure as i have no fears of anyones religion, nor do i think they should be judged on how they lead, if they are mormon, baptist, church of christ or catholic.

The Repub base must come out strong in the south. They won't for Rudy and they will for Thompson, no matter what dirt is dug up on him. The Independents and the i am not sure vote will win the next election. Who get's that vote? The Dems or the Rupubs? In a whole, both bases should come out and do their job and vote mainly their party line.

Mavdog · 08-11-2007, 09:13 PM

yeah, I want to hear why tax cuts are good for some people, but not good for students seeking a college degree (voted no to increase limit of tax deductions for college tuition). apparently fred doesn't believe that there should be any help to those who want to get a college degree.

or how about no vote against reducing the "marriage penalty"? why wasn't he for that tax cut? oh wait, he voted both for AND against that one...what was that phrase they labeled kerry with, oh yeah "flip flopper".

could we hear why fred believes citizens should not be able to sue their hmo if the hmo is negligent, in fact fred voted to protect the insurance industry from these lawsuits.

and a big one, tell us fred why there should not be background checks on people who want to purchase firearms at gun shows? fred voted against this. and why should there not be any oversight on gun dealers, requiring them to show they did check to see if the buyer was a convicted felon? again, a no vote from fred.

does fred believe that convicted felons should be able to easily purchase firearms? is fred in favor of criminals having ease of access to weapons so they can use them in a crime? seems the answer may be yes, as he also voted to not add additional penalties to those found guilty of using a firearm during the course of committing a crime.

so tell us fred, why?

Janett_Reno · 08-11-2007, 10:36 PM

These are things the gop and he knows he will be ripped with. This is no secret. The gop is banking on, he is a big white male, from the south, an actor, and can get around answering that by him saying "well".

They feel Hills is a woman, Obama is a black man, they know Rudy dressing in women's clothes and pantyhose is not good and they know Catholic isn't good in politics. Roms is mormon. Fred looks like the typical pres, or what they preceive. He is also going to not do good on the faith and morals issues. I think maybe he has been married 3 or 4 times.

I feel the USA has came along way and i am proud of our country. Rice has broke that mold and has tried but it is hard with neocons, as your boss. Obama is doing good and race is comming a lesser issue and yes i know it still exist but it is so much better and i feel a woman, a black man, can be elected. Colin Powell i also feel he could do very good but the way he was treated, he might be a vice under a Dem.

I will also take up for Repubs in Rudy and Roms. They shouldn't be judged on their religion, to kick them out.

You are right, Fred doesn't have a free ride, when he get's in, he will be fair game and the shots will be fired.

alexamenos · 08-17-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

He is the best shot for the Republicans. .....

I frankly don't think Fred has one chance in hell in getting the Republican nod. His support, which has probably peaked, seems largely dependent upon the inconvenient truth that people don't know too much about him other than that he has a deep voice. When (if?) he comes out of the comfortable confines of the sidelines and enters the fray I suspect he will be greeted with a resounding yawn.

I can pretty well imagine what a slogan for Fred Thompson might say...something like:

Fred Thompson, at least he can act like a Conservative

That just doesn't suit the GOP's interests too well right now.

Flacolaco · 08-17-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

and a big one, tell us fred why there should not be background checks on people who want to purchase firearms at gun shows?

That's a good question actually.

purplefrog · 08-17-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and a big one, tell us fred why there should not be background checks on people who want to purchase firearms at gun shows? fred voted against this. and why should there not be any oversight on gun dealers, requiring them to show they did check to see if the buyer was a convicted felon? again, a no vote from fred.
so tell us fred, why?

I'm not sure but it might have something to do with NRA support. Just a thought....

Usually Lurkin · 08-17-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, I want to hear why tax cuts are good for some people, but not good for students seeking a college degree (voted no to increase limit of tax deductions for college tuition). apparently fred doesn't believe that there should be any help to those who want to get a college degree.

or how about no vote against reducing the "marriage penalty"? why wasn't he for that tax cut? oh wait, he voted both for AND against that one...what was that phrase they labeled kerry with, oh yeah "flip flopper".

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
seems pretty clear by these two marriage penalty votes that Freds for both eliminating the marriage penalty and reducing taxes on the high brackets
*Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
*Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)

The vote on tax reduction for students was similar, the proposal was to limit already proposed reductions on some by increasing reductions on others. Sounds like Fred is generally for reducing taxes for everyone. At least, he voted to make it harder to raise taxes.
*Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes.

As for the HMO and gun control issues, I'd like to hear his reasoning, also. I'd guess it has something to do with federalism and activist judges, and his notion that people with guns can stop things like the Virginia Tech massacre.

Here's a couple things I like to see:
* Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
* Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
* Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

# Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
# Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Mavdog · 08-18-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
seems pretty clear by these two marriage penalty votes that Freds for both eliminating the marriage penalty and reducing taxes on the high brackets
*Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
*Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)

The vote on tax reduction for students was similar, the proposal was to limit already proposed reductions on some by increasing reductions on others. Sounds like Fred is generally for reducing taxes for everyone. At least, he voted to make it harder to raise taxes.
*Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes.

the student tuition vote was to raise the limit on deduction allowed, so I don't follow your reasoning.

Quote:

As for the HMO and gun control issues, I'd like to hear his reasoning, also. I'd guess it has something to do with federalism and activist judges, and his notion that people with guns can stop things like the Virginia Tech massacre

"federalism and activist judges"???
this is not a question of concealed gun permits or states rights, which seems what the ruse of "stop things like the Virginia Tech massacre" is about.

it sure is easier to prevent a massacre by a gunman if the rules on background checks, for criminals as well as the mentally ill, are implemented and followed.

Quote:

# Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

an amendment mandating a balanced budget is not wise nor needed.

Nemesis · 08-18-2007, 12:05 PM

I regret coming in this forum..

Usually Lurkin · 08-21-2007, 11:56 PM

http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/...-state-of-mind

When I was working in television, I spent quite a bit of time in New York City. There are lots of things about the place I like, but New York gun laws don’t fall in that category.

Anybody who knows me knows I’ve always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I’ve always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort.

Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani’s administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple.

The lawsuit has been a lesson in out-of-control government from the get-go. Mayor Bloomberg sent private investigators to make “straw” purchases – illegally buying guns for somebody else. According to the ATF, NY’s illegal “stings” interfered with ongoing investigations of real gun traffickers.

Obviously, New York won’t get much cash out of the few dozen shops being sued in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia; so the purpose can only be political. Some of those sued have already buckled under the financial strain of legal defense and agreed to live by New York City rules.

Ironically, all of this comes at a time of historically low violent crime rates and historically high gun ownership rates nationally. States where it is legal to carry guns are also at an all-time high, up to 40 from 10 in 1987 by NRA reckoning.

While this attack by New York City on the Second Amendment reinforces the importance of appointing judges who apply the law as written, there is another important legal point. Federalism, though usually seen as a protection of the states from the federal government, actually grew out of the need to protect states from other states that interfered in free commerce beyond their borders – as New York is doing today. In this case, we need Federalism to protect states from a big bully in New York City.

Mavdog · 08-22-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/...-state-of-mind

When I was working in television, I spent quite a bit of time in New York City. There are lots of things about the place I like, but New York gun laws don’t fall in that category.

Anybody who knows me knows I’ve always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I’ve always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort.

Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani’s administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple.

The lawsuit has been a lesson in out-of-control government from the get-go. Mayor Bloomberg sent private investigators to make “straw” purchases – illegally buying guns for somebody else. According to the ATF, NY’s illegal “stings” interfered with ongoing investigations of real gun traffickers.

Obviously, New York won’t get much cash out of the few dozen shops being sued in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia; so the purpose can only be political. Some of those sued have already buckled under the financial strain of legal defense and agreed to live by New York City rules.

Ironically, all of this comes at a time of historically low violent crime rates and historically high gun ownership rates nationally. States where it is legal to carry guns are also at an all-time high, up to 40 from 10 in 1987 by NRA reckoning.

While this attack by New York City on the Second Amendment reinforces the importance of appointing judges who apply the law as written, there is another important legal point. Federalism, though usually seen as a protection of the states from the federal government, actually grew out of the need to protect states from other states that interfered in free commerce beyond their borders – as New York is doing today. In this case, we need Federalism to protect states from a big bully in New York City.

let me get this straight, NYC sends under cover agents to gun stores out of NYC , and have proof these stores illegally sell guns to the agents? and these are stores who have been shown to provide guns that criminals used in crimes in NYC, right?

seems the stores are breaking the law (not NYC law, but laws in the respective states where the stores are located). how is this NYC having "interfered in free commerce beyond their borders", is illegal commerce "free commerce"?

NYC being "a big bully"? no, it seems that NYC is doing what these states are failing to do, enforce the law.

alexamenos · 09-07-2007, 04:54 PM

Regarding my earlier comment that when Fred Thompson.....

Quote:

.... comes out of the comfortable confines of the sidelines and enters the fray I suspect he will be greeted with a resounding yawn.

A report on a Salt Lake City gathering for Thompson's entry into the race --

Quote:

Just four Thompson supporters showed up at Utah Republican Party headquarters for the event, leaving dozens of untouched cookies and vegetable snacks provided in hopes a much bigger crowd would materialize.

4 people in a staunchly conservative city with a population well into the hundreds of thousands?

I'm not absolutely certain that Thompson's appearance on Leno will be the peak of his campaign, but I'd bet a couple of bucks on it.

dude1394 · 09-07-2007, 07:02 PM

Man only about 5% of the country gives two twits what's going on in presidential politics right now, and that includes 95% of the Ron Paul supporters.

Janett_Reno · 09-07-2007, 10:14 PM

5%. Now that is spin even Bill O'Reily wouldn't like. Fred had hurdles. dude knows Rudy can't beat Hillary and this is why he is grasping at straws. dude is right, that Fred has the better shot but Fred has many hurdles to overcome. First he has let Rudy get a nice jump in the grand ole party. Fred could have had 8 wifes and he could be 90 years old and say i am not telling you where i stand on abortion and gay people. Guess what? He would still win the south and the gop must win the south or they are beat before the election ever starts.

Rudy will do good in the north but if it is a Rudy/Hillary match, Hillary will run strong against Rudy in the south. If you want a list of reasons why i can give you them. Hillary will beat him in swing states. Those big three states are going to come into play again, Oh, FL and PA. Oh is leaning Democrat at the moment. Pa has been Democrat but alot of the Republican party is trying to get Republicans to move into Pa but it is still not likely they will win that state(this time). Fl can go either way.

At some point and time Fred will have to talk and debate and they will start hammering on Fred. His Republican friends running. Like Obama has done with Hillary. It is just part of it. Can Fred do good and hang in there, answer his positions and talk well? We have to wait and see. I don't think Rudy does bad against Hillary but no i don't think he can beat her. Fred is a little of a mystery and yes he has baggage that is going to be brought out and he has a chance of getting beat badly or if all goes well for him, he could have a lil more shot than Rudy.

If you match up Obama or Edwards straight up againt the gop, in most polls they are running ahead. You must remember, Rudy, Fred and the gop has a big hurdle to overcome and explain that they are not a neocon. Edwards and Obama will continue to hammer at Hillary as that is their only chance. Now you are going to see Mitt, McCain start hammering at Rudy and Fred as Fred and Rudy go at it. It is all interesting.

I still feel Rudy has a hold now and the money will pour to Rudy but can Fred get in and over take this and sway the gop to come to him? I think i know Hillary's vice president or i am thinking of two people but i am trying to figure out Rudy's vice and maybe even Fred's. I think the vice will also be interesting and important for both parties.

dude1394 · 09-07-2007, 10:54 PM

How many people watched the last democrat debate. Less than a million. Let me help you thats 1/300 (0.3 %) No one is paying attention. It hasn't even begun. As usual Janett, you start counting your chickens way too early.

I don't know if Thompson has peaked or not, nor does anyone else because no one's paying attention.

5% is probably high.

Janett_Reno · 09-07-2007, 11:59 PM

Do you feel Rudy can beat Hillary? I honestly feel McCain would have a decent chance but the gop will never elect him and really i do not blame them. He has ran his course and hanging around. He seems to get votes within both parties. I do agree with you on Thompson and this is the mystery in him. Has he peaked or will he take off more. It should start to get interesting.

dude1394 · 09-08-2007, 12:11 AM

Yea..I think rudy can beat hillary. Mainly because I just don't believe that senators make good candidates and as Karl Rove said, her negatives are just so high that it's going to be very difficult to overcome that.

I don't think any dem candidate can beat her for the nomination but once she's the focus of all attention, I expect her natural unlikeability will shine through. Much like AlGores did once everyone got a good look at him.

But she's disciplined and she has people who know how to win elections. It won't be a cakewalk.

McCain suffers from senator syndrome even worse than hillary, he's been there too long. Also everyones' seen McCain and he's continued to lose. Although I respect his integrity greatly, his core conservative values seem off, but he's a very honorable man. Much more so than hillary imo.

Flacolaco · 09-08-2007, 12:20 AM

I sure hope you're right dude.

My feeling is still that the Dems could put a middle eastern guy who wears a vest full of C4 all the time up for their presidential candidate and he'd still win.

I think people are really going to just be looking to 'not vote republican.'

dude1394 · 09-08-2007, 12:26 AM

As said before it's a long time before the election. I also think that quite a bit of folks have done their anti-republican thing and see what they've gotten. A 3% approval rating congress on iraq and just about single digits on everything else.

Hillary is not a particularly strong candidate either.

Janett_Reno · 09-08-2007, 01:03 AM

Beings you feel congress is going to get creamed next time i will make a prediction that the Democrats will pick up more seats in the senate and congress than the Republicans. Now, let's all remember this day forever in history. If the congress is liked by 3% of the American people and the Democrats pick up seats in the congress and senate, what does this tell the whole wide world about the other party?

I will remind you about this after the election. Flacolaco i feel is on to something. You just wait untill this election dude and you watch the anti neocon vote. You also watch this vice president Hillary picks and the three states that decides most all elections, Hillary will have a shot at sweeping all three with her vice president comparred to the gop.

We know how much this neocon administation is loved, respected, and i am guessing their approval ratting would be somewhere around 95% and throw Ashcroft and Rumsfield back in the mix and it could maybe be 100% approval ratting. Congress approved by 3%, so let's see if your land slide predictions is right or if Ms Janett and Robert Novak predictions are right.

dude1394 · 09-08-2007, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Beings you feel congress is going to get creamed next time i will make a prediction that the Democrats will pick up more seats in the senate and congress than the Republicans. Now, let's all remember this day forever in history. If the congress is liked by 3% of the American people and the Democrats pick up seats in the congress and senate, what does this tell the whole wide world about the other party?

I will remind you about this after the election. Flacolaco i feel is on to something. You just wait untill this election dude and you watch the anti neocon vote. You also watch this vice president Hillary picks and the three states that decides most all elections, Hillary will have a shot at sweeping all three with her vice president comparred to the gop.

We know how much this neocon administation is loved, respected, and i am guessing their approval ratting would be somewhere around 95% and throw Ashcroft and Rumsfield back in the mix and it could maybe be 100% approval ratting. Congress approved by 3%, so let's see if your land slide predictions is right or if Ms Janett and Robert Novak predictions are right.

Again don't get ahead of yourself janett. I didn't say the congress would get creamed, in general they rarely do with all of the gerrymandering. What I said was that many took out their frustration with the republicans in the last election imo. I expect they will see that the congress is a bunch of idiots (which the democrat congress is) and that they will not want to have all democrats in there.

I haven't looked that hard at the congress yet, that one is usually way too intense to call as most are local issues. I think I heard that the republicans had more to defend which in general would mean a tougher time.

I expect they will pick up a few seats and the republicans will win the white house again. That's MY prediction, not some ridiculous landslide. And come see me when Michael Barone makes a call, not Novak, novak is too much of a gossip columnist to do his homework.

We can certainly come back to this once hillary is defeated. As regards her VP, come on.

I meant to ask, how is Rudy polling in New York? That will be an interesting story. I'm not sure when't he last time a republican won new york, not predicting he will but it will be interesting.

And instead of neocon, why don't you just saw jew like you'd like to?

jacktruth · 09-08-2007, 01:16 AM

The Church of Christ is a denomination, and a pretty sizable one.

dude1394 · 09-08-2007, 01:18 AM

Jack is that a romney vote? I haven't looked at him close enough, but he has the qualifications for me that hillary doesn't. He was governor and not senator. He's been an executive and run more than 10 pages.

dude1394 · 09-08-2007, 01:19 AM

So I haven't heard you defend hillary that much Janett? Is she your "man"?

Flacolaco · 09-08-2007, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

And instead of neocon, why don't you just saw jew like you'd like to?

Oh dear....

Janett_Reno · 09-08-2007, 02:02 AM

dude, ny is not even in question. The Democrats will cream any Republican running in ny. She could pick Jessee Jackson or any one from a hat and still win ny. The Republicans will win most of the south but again Rudy will not be the best man to win in the south. Where the president will be won is Pa, Oh, Fl, In, Mo, Va, Wi. The south is Republican, the north east is Democrat. Most of the midwestern states are Republican. Texas will go Republican but more people moving into the usa and into Tx are alot more Democrats moving in and votting. Tx is still Republican. Ca will go Democrat. States like NY and Il is no question they are going Democrat. Mi and more of the north will go Democrat also.

No i am not calling anyone a Jew. This administration maybe has no jewish people in it, i am not sure. Rudy is Catholic and Fred is Church Of Christ. This has hurt John McCain because he doesn't really know where he stands anymore. Him and Bush and the neocon administation clashed and clashed. Guys like Ramsfield, Chains, and W but the Republicans said come on John, make the grand ole party look good and unite with Chains and the good ole boys. We will include you at some of the bbq's this way John. So McCain caves in and goes from a bad thorn in their side to defending the neocons and liking all their agendas.

Republicans and Democrats are scarred of him now as no one knows where he will stand next month. He had me fooled as i thought he was a good strong man that believed in core values and would stand up for them and himself.

As far as Rudy, he is going to just not try to rock the boat and say what sounds good and hope like heck you don't push him on core Republican issues because this is where he falls off the boat sometimes. Rudy's problem dude, is the good ole boys down south like a conversation about hunting and fishing and drink a good cold one with us. Rudy comes off as maybe you are at a bbq and maybe he walks in in pantyhose and a dress. That doesn't set well with the good ole boys down south. I know you do not feel religion is important in politics but i disagree. It has been one Catholic president in history and that was JFK.

I remember when the religious communities hammered Kerry because of him being Catholic. I feel Romney is a very religious person but i also feel the public will be scarred to death of Mormon because they will be like, what is that? So he will be judged on "that".

If Thompson can play his fishing and hunting cards right and be a like one of the good ole boys and distance himself from the neocon administration and not have to answer to some things he doesn't even know where he stands, he might could come on and beat Rudy. He has waited to long and he has hurdles to climb and jump over. I feel what hurts Rudy is some of the core things that Republicans value, Rudy is not 100% with them. I know you think this will be funny but his female ways will not help him. His 3 or 4 times married doen't help and it even hurts Thompson. Come on, this is the faith and values party. Not the swingers club,

Rudy marrying his first cousin is not a good thing. The next thing i feel is wrong and bad but he will be judged by being Catholic by people like Pat Robertson and other religious preachers and people that have a high following. No, i do not think Rudy has a chance at all against Hillary in the state of NY. None. That state is Democrat, period. Rudy is working FL hard and he should. Hillary has a shot there also and if she wins that state it will be very rough on the gop.

When these people meet Hillary on stage they must be at their best. It won't be many that can debate Hillary and come off looking very good. The best in the USA is her husband. No one can debate him. He is the king and she is good herself. I also feel Flacolaco was on the mark also, with anyone that gets the Republican nominee will be judged by saying oh here is another Ashcroft, W, Chains, Ramsfield, Gonzalez, and the list goes on. Is this fair? Probably not but that is what the neocons has done to the Republican party. It won't be fixed by next election.

I will go as far, as not only will Hillary win but if she steps down after one term her vice president will win after her 4 years are up. The neocon administration dude has hurt the Republican chances in the senate, congress and pres. It won't be a pretty site next election. I also think Hillary will do just fine.

Janett_Reno · 09-08-2007, 02:31 AM

I have no problems with Obama or Edwards either. As far as the Republicans, it isn't alot to choose from. I have no problem with Ron Paul and i like him. I think Romney wouldn't be bad. The problems are Romney, Paul, Edwards, Obama has no shot at Hillary or Rudy or Fred. The money is going to flow to Hillary and flowing to Rudy but yes Fred has a shot. I also liked John McCain ok untill he caved in and began to be a turn coat. He ruined himself and now his politcal career is over. He would have made a strong Vice Pres but now he would hurt the party bad at VP. He is about like Newt, done.

I think Rudy will make a bad president. I also feel playboy Fred won't be any good. I feel anyone in any of the parties would be better than what we have now. I don't think you could get a worse one. Kinky Friedman would be wonderful comparred to what we have now. This one now doesn't know if he is going or comming or where he is.

Now to finish with, when you get a Bush(any of them including Neil and Jeb), Clinton's, Fred, Rudy, they will all be tied to big money. Big money will flow their way and they will have ties to them. This is where Obama, Edwards, Paul, Romney would be more down to earth and not be tied down to big money as bad. Who wins presidents? Big money. So you have to play the big money game and play it good. You asked did i feel Hillary would make a good president or where i stand with her. I think she will do ok and she won't sell this country out like the neocons have. I think she will get back the to citizens of the United States and not go around trying to police the world. She will try to get debt down where this administration has almost wrecked it. Health care and insurance must be looked at. Our country. Not all over the world building bridges, roads and trying to help others that want to kill us. Help our people, our roads, and our infrastructure.

I also feel Romney, Paul, Obama and Edwards would do good and do the above things. This is terrible with W signing in law to let Mexican truck drivers compete with ours. They are now allowed to drive in the usa and now our companies will hire that cheap labor. They can't read English or alot of them can't to read road signs. They won't have to take breaks like our drivers do. Drive a month solid if they want to. Those raggidy trucks of Mexico teaing up our highways. More stupid terrible stuff from the neocons. I don't think this stuff and laws, behavior will be tolerated by the next administation, no matter who they are. I feel even Rudy and Fred wouldn't stoop that low.

Janett_Reno · 09-08-2007, 02:53 AM

I forgot to mention, the illegals over here. Pouring across our borders. W and Chains will do nothing about that and again this is terrible. It is private citizens doing more for Tx, NM, Az and other states than our government is doing. This is wrong. Oh no, we are trying to police the world as that is more important than our own country.

We have alot of probs that need to be solved or worked on. I can't believe it isn't more people wanting to stand up for their country when W asks other day for 50 billion more to fund his, Ramfield and Chains Iraq war. Now even i have probs with some in congress when the people elected them and said, we want out of Iraq and get us out of Iraq. Alot are doing like Rudy and playing the game, don't rock the boat. I don't like that. Do you know what 50 billion would do with our borders, our bridges, our roads, schools, hospitals, better health care and better care for our veterans?

It is time this country stand up and vote, to think and tell your ideas and make our country a better place. Not go ask Pat Robertson or Ted Haggard how am i suppose to vote this election? It would also be good for elected officials like a Ron Paul or John Edwards to have an equal shot. I would include Dennis K but even him, like Fred went and got him a little young beauty queen. This doesn't help him. It doesn't make them younger.

People better listen long and hard what the politicians are saying in there speaches and everyone of us need to make a decison on our own, is this one and that one being serious. You better bet Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, Ted Kennedy or Karl Rove doesn't tell me how to vote. I have a mind to think with and i will use it.

dude1394 · 09-08-2007, 09:18 AM

Silly...Sorry that you feel a socialist, baby-killing, military-hating, crook will make a good president. It's the left way, they've embraced socialist, communist maniacs most of their existence.

Not to mention her most grevious act. Voting for the invasion of Iraq, stating that they had WMD and refusing to apologise for that vote. Oh the shame.

Hmm...maybe she's a jew?

DevinFuture · 09-08-2007, 09:39 AM

I think Paul would have the best chance to win the general election against the democrats. Fortunately for the democrats, Paul will not win the republican nomination.

alexamenos · 09-08-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

Man only about 5% of the country gives two twits what's going on in presidential politics right now, and that includes 95% of the Ron Paul supporters.

yeah, but the 5% that are paying attention are the folks that shovel cash to candidates...this is the time of the campaign cycle when the choices are narrowed down to a choice between a corrupt nanny state socialist or the democrat candidate, but I repeat myself.

point being....this is the time when the real choices are made and once the primaries start it's just a show to make the major party candidates look like they're really great people.

Fred's foursome in SLC is really quite telling -- I bet a similar god-zillary thing would have easily drawn four hundred.