OK Guys, We need to pick our Pony!

[hdmarketing]

This is for RG, Frank, Cat, and the other very few conservitives on this forum.

Now is the time.

We need to pick our pony and stick with him.

I started out in the early days watching Huckabee, but now I am not sure of him. He supports my top 5 stances on the issues, but there are things I don't like, for instance His Tax Plan.

I am not sure about your issues, but my top 5 are:

1. Pro Border enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro 2nd ammendment (right to bear arms):

4. Anti Gay Marrage:

5. Anti Government Health Care:

Hucks stance on those issues alone:

1. Pro Border Enforcement.

2. Pro Life

3. Pro 2nd amemendment.

4. Anti Gay Marrage.

5. ANti Gov Health Care.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home

Fred Thompson:

Now I Like Fred, I just don't know if he can pull it off.

1. Very Pro Border Enforcement:

2. Very Pro Life:

3. Very Pro second Amendment:

4. Strongly apposes Gay Marrage:

5. Against Gove Health Care.

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues


Duncan Hunter

I really like Duncan Hunter.

1. He is also ver pro Border Enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro Second Ammendment

4. Aposes Gay Marrage

5. Against Gov Controlled Health Care.

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

Rudy:
Don't like him, never have:

John Mccain:
Don't like him, never have:

Ron Paul:
Don't like him never have:

Mitt Romney:
Don't lke him never have:

I like Hunter the best but I just don't think he can pull it off.

The most important thing is we need a candidate that supports conservitive America, and that can pull off victory in the Election.

What we DON't NEED?

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Paul, or Romney.

[kres24GT]

LMAO @ gay marriage and abortions being important issues, gay marriage especially. Politicians are robing us blind with social and corporate welfare programs, but that's OK as long as two dudes can't get married.

[hdmarketing]

LMAO @ gay marriage and abortions being important issues, gay marriage especially. Politicians are robing us blind with social and corporate welfare programs, but that's OK as long as two dudes can't get married.

Laugh your ass off, they may not be important to you, but they are to me.

I have other issues, and I also look at them too, but to me my issues are important to me, I ask again, what's so fucking wrong with what I beleive in, and standing on my issues?

What the fuck is so wrong with where I stand?

[Independent Harry]

Laugh your ass off, they may not be important to you, but they are to me.

I have other issues, and I also look at them too, but to me my issues are important to me, I ask again, what's so fucking wrong with what I beleive in, and standing on my issues?

What the fuck is so wrong with where I stand?

Probably because your beliefs are moronic and have no basis in what's truly important in the grand scheme of things.

[disrupter]

hdmarketing's world is very fragile, be gentle.

'tink'

oop, i think his brain just broke.

'pick a pony'?

I am shopping for a president.
Using the savvy scrutiny to get the best product at a reasonable price.

[Moby]

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. Just because some may not agree with HD's values doesn't make them wrong. I respect anyone that sticks by their values as opposed to the masses that changed their values to elect Dubya.

What I find strange is the belief that Fred is for items 1, 2 and 5 above. His past shows that he can and will be purchased. We know that he will continue along the neocon path of keeping the border wide open and as a lobbyist he will do whatever is most profitable on items 2 and 5.

Fred's profession is actor first, lobbyist second and politics is just a hobby.

[Cat slave]

This is for RG, Frank, Cat, and the other very few conservitives on this forum.

Now is the time.

We need to pick our pony and stick with him.

I started out in the early days watching Huckabee, but now I am not sure of him. He supports my top 5 stances on the issues, but there are things I don't like, for instance His Tax Plan.

I am not sure about your issues, but my top 5 are:

1. Pro Border enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro 2nd ammendment (right to bear arms):

4. Anti Gay Marrage:

5. Anti Government Health Care:

Hucks stance on those issues alone:

1. Pro Border Enforcement.

2. Pro Life

3. Pro 2nd amemendment.

4. Anti Gay Marrage.

5. ANti Gov Health Care.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home

Fred Thompson:

Now I Like Fred, I just don't know if he can pull it off.

1. Very Pro Border Enforcement:

2. Very Pro Life:

3. Very Pro second Amendment:

4. Strongly apposes Gay Marrage:

5. Against Gove Health Care.

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues


Duncan Hunter

I really like Duncan Hunter.

1. He is also ver pro Border Enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro Second Ammendment

4. Aposes Gay Marrage

5. Against Gov Controlled Health Care.

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

Rudy:
Don't like him, never have:

John Mccain:
Don't like him, never have:

Ron Paul:
Don't like him never have:

Mitt Romney:
Don't lke him never have:

I like Hunter the best but I just don't think he can pull it off.

The most important thing is we need a candidate that supports conservitive America, and that can pull off victory in the Election.

What we DON't NEED?

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Paul, or Romney.

Hey Kres. I watched every second of the Pubs part of the ABC debate.
Im loving Thompson and yes, Huckabee (he redeemed himself with me).

My issues rate as follows:

Border security. Enforce laws so employers cannot employ anyone here
illegally. They will go home...we wont have to deport their sorry asses.

The trade deficit. Implement penalties on companys who take plants and
business out of our country and at the same our peoples jobs!

Health care. Not free for all which would be free for none! For Gods sake
dont let the gov screw up anything else!!!!!!

Abolish capital gains....weve paid already dearly for our investments.

Lower taxes and cut spending.....waayyyyy downnn! Get out of the
way and let our system work.

Preserve our right to bear arms and all the other "rights" we have that
they are trying to remove.

I dont have really strong feelings about gay marriage beyond civil unions
would be fine, but marriage is to legitimate children. Wheres the problem?

Re: abortion. It should be strictly limited to the first trimester or earlier
unless the moms life is in danger and always available to vicitms of rape
and incest. I should not be freely used as birth control of conveinience
in lieu of personal responsibility. NEVER EVER PARTIAL BIRTH ABORITON/
MURDER.

Im loving Thompson and as long as Huckabee comes down hard on illegals
he will have my support.

I surfed over those characters on the other side and God, what a cast of
characters! I couldnt stomach the whole part of their debate/mud slinging.

[Cat slave]

Thompson fits my bill and Huckabee can too though Im not religious.

Stand back, the **** is going to start flying.;)

[Jesse Hemingway]

This is for RG, Frank, Cat, and the other very few conservitives on this forum.

Now is the time.

We need to pick our pony and stick with him.

I started out in the early days watching Huckabee, but now I am not sure of him. He supports my top 5 stances on the issues, but there are things I don't like, for instance His Tax Plan.

I am not sure about your issues, but my top 5 are:

1. Pro Border enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro 2nd ammendment (right to bear arms):

4. Anti Gay Marrage:

5. Anti Government Health Care:

Hucks stance on those issues alone:

1. Pro Border Enforcement.

2. Pro Life

3. Pro 2nd amemendment.

4. Anti Gay Marrage.

5. ANti Gov Health Care.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home

Fred Thompson:

Now I Like Fred, I just don't know if he can pull it off.

1. Very Pro Border Enforcement:

2. Very Pro Life:

3. Very Pro second Amendment:

4. Strongly apposes Gay Marrage:

5. Against Gove Health Care.

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues


Duncan Hunter

I really like Duncan Hunter.

1. He is also ver pro Border Enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro Second Ammendment

4. Aposes Gay Marrage

5. Against Gov Controlled Health Care.

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

Rudy:
Don't like him, never have:

John Mccain:
Don't like him, never have:

Ron Paul:
Don't like him never have:

Mitt Romney:
Don't lke him never have:

I like Hunter the best but I just don't think he can pull it off.

The most important thing is we need a candidate that supports conservitive America, and that can pull off victory in the Election.

What we DON't NEED?

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Paul, or Romney.

Grow up and call yourself what you are a fascist you sure aren’t a conservative if you were a conservative the United States Constitution would come first then the candidate that protects it would also be your first choice. You fascist make me sick and ruined the word and meaning of conservative.

[Cat slave]

Grow up and call yourself what you are a fascist you sure aren’t a conservative if you were a conservative the United States Constitution would come first then the candidate that protects it would also be your first choice. You fascist make me sick and ruined the word and meaning of conservative.

Son, I think you have real anger issues and should seek help on that. For real.

[bairdi]

Never pick a pony in a horse race.

Dumbya......you gotta love him.
Fixed Iraq
Fixed the Economy
Fixed Immigration
and now it looks like he's Fixed the Repuglican Party.

:lmao2:

What's more exciting....watching paint dry or watching Fred.

[Little Red Dog]

...

Re: abortion. It should be strictly limited to the first trimester or earlier
unless the moms life is in danger and always available to vicitms of rape
and incest. I should not be freely used as birth control of conveinience
in lieu of personal responsibility. NEVER EVER PARTIAL BIRTH ABORITON/
MURDER.

Point of fact: Partial birth abortions are already illegal under Roe v Wade. They are only ever performed when the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy is NOT terminated. As, for an example in an ectopic pregnancy, when the mother would almost certainly die if the pregnancy were continued to full term.

Additionally, under Roe v Wade, abortions are already limited to first trimester.

Anti-abortion activists would have you believe otherwise, but it's simply not true. And if they have their way, abortion would be unavailable to no woman - not even victims of rape or incest.

Abortion rights supporters want Roe v Wade to remain as it stands. And as it stands, abortion is not recommended by any doctor or birth control clinic as a method of contraception.

Whether the woman who chooses to have an abortion is using it as such, is not something that the state can determine. The woman's true motivations are known only to her.

In fact, many women who keep their pregnancies are pro-choice. And the word here is "choice". Just because a woman CAN have an abortion doesn't automatically mean she will.


...I surfed over those characters on the other side and God, what a cast of
characters! I couldnt stomach the whole part of their debate/mud slinging.

Funny. Many non-Republicans felt the same way about "your" cast of characters.

Did you not catch any of the mud-slinging on the Republican debate? There was plenty of it being splattered.

Politics is a dirty business.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I'm a Republican and my candidate of choice is Ron Paul. Here is where he stands on the issues. And how he voted in the past.


http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Ron Paul on Abortion

Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Budget & Economy

Maintain the value of the dollar, unlike Federal Reserve. (Oct 2007)
Currency inflation counterfeits prosperity & destroys poor. (Oct 2007)
Can't legislate economic fairness; so make government small. (Sep 2007)
Prioritize spending based on Constitution--and lower it too. (Sep 2007)
Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Civil Rights

Protect all voluntary associations; don't define marriage. (Oct 2007)
No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)
First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007)
Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus. (Sep 2007)
Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)


Ron Paul on Corporations

Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)


Ron Paul on Crime

Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes. (Sep 2007)
Opposes "hate crimes" legislation. (Sep 2007)
Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007)
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Rated 60% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Drugs

Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
$500B on War on Drugs since 1970s has been a total failure. (Sep 2007)
Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Education

Don't impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007)
Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Ron Paul on Energy & Oil

Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)

Ron Paul on Environment

Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Families & Children

Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)
No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)


Ron Paul on Free Trade

Block international highway from Canada to Mexico. (Dec 2007)
No North American Union; no WTO; no UN. (Sep 2007)
Inappropriate to impose sanctions for persecuting Christians. (Sep 2007)
China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)
No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico. (Sep 2007)
NAFTA superhighway threatens widespread eminent domain. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)


Ron Paul on Government Reform

DC voting representation should be determined by Amendment. (Sep 2007)
No federal voter ID card; but state ID cards ok. (Sep 2007)
Constitution was written to restrain the federal government. (Sep 2007)
We are drifting rather rapidly into a totalitarian state. (Sep 2007)
Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God. (Sep 2007)
End government secrecy; restore openness of information. (Aug 2007)
With neocon philosophy, Cheney is more powerful than Bush. (Aug 2007)
Signing statements erode constitutional balance. (Jul 2007)
Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Gun Control

Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)
Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it's not just a "collective right". (Mar 2007)
Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Health Care

Insurance companies & gov't make healthcare unaffordable. (Oct 2007)
Transfer funds from debt & empire-building to healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Socialized medicine won't work; nor managed care. (Oct 2007)
Managed care is expensive and hasn't worked. (Sep 2007)
Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)
Not government's role to protect people like Terri Schiavo. (Sep 2007)
Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Homeland Security

Protect against terrorism by understanding their motivations. (Dec 2007)
Violating habeas corpus will be used against us. (Sep 2007)
Protect military chaplains' right to pray in preferred faith. (Sep 2007)
Eliminate FBI & DHS; interpret intelligence intelligently. (Sep 2007)
Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition. (Jun 2007)
DHS is unmanageable bureaucracy--eliminate it. (May 2007)
Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
Be cautious about warrantless searches & habeas corpus. (May 2007)
Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)
Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
End draft registration; all-volunteer forces . (Dec 2000)
Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000)
Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on Immigration

No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important. (Jun 2007)
We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

Ron Paul on War & Peace

Iraq is not Nazi Germany; WWII opposition did not cause WWII. (Dec 2007)
Non-intervention means Congress declares war when threatened. (Dec 2007)
Anger abroad at US for planning 14 permanent bases in Iraq. (Dec 2007)
Mercantilist oil dependency was reason for war. (Oct 2007)
Congressional authorization needed to attack Iran's nukes. (Oct 2007)
We went into Iraq under false pretenses of WMD and 9/11. (Sep 2007)
Radicals come to kill us because we occupy their lands. (Sep 2007)
Preemptive war is against Christian doctrine of just war. (Sep 2007)
No US role in autonomy for Christians in Iraq Nineveh region. (Sep 2007)
People saying "bloodbath" said "cakewalk": listen to dissent. (Sep 2007)
Take marching orders from Constitution; not from al Qaeda. (Sep 2007)
How many more lives lost just to save face? (Sep 2007)
Neocons hijacked our foreign policy to invade Iraq. (Sep 2007)
Talk to Iran like we talked to Soviets during Cold War. (Sep 2007)
Iraq war is illegal; undeclared wars never end & we lose. (Aug 2007)
Neocons promoted Iraq war for years; not about Al Qaida. (Aug 2007)
We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
Stop policing Iraq's streets; have Iraqis take over. (Jun 2007)
We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)
Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)
Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)
When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)
Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)

Voting Record

Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Ron Paul on Welfare & Poverty

Bush's faith-based initiative is "a neocon project". (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

..................................

I don't agree with everything he says but a lot of it.


Lady Mod

[Jesse Hemingway]

Sorry I admit my mistake maybe clinton is the second best republican behind Ron Paul. I could live with Ron Paul as President the rest of the field are as wothless as the phony conservatives on this site.:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Moby]

Thompson fits my bill and Huckabee can too though Im not religious.
I'm just curious. What in Fred's history makes him a good a candidate for you?

Is it his lobbying efforts or his acting skills? :)

I'm not talking about how the actor presents himself in front of a camera, we know that he gets paid well for that already.

[Bill]

Good luck to you, Reds!

Glad to see you taking this tack, HD.

[kres24GT]

Laugh your ass off, they may not be important to you, but they are to me.

I have other issues, and I also look at them too, but to me my issues are important to me, I ask again, what's so fucking wrong with what I beleive in, and standing on my issues?

What the fuck is so wrong with where I stand?


If two dudes getting hitched is anywhere on your top 100 issues,kill yourself. Two guys getting married affects my life in no way. I am far more concerned with things that actually affect my life. Again our politcians are robbing us blind and selling us out to the highest bidder. Be against fag getting married is not even close to an important an issue as this or about a million other things. Suicide might be your best option. Or at least castrate yourself.

[kres24GT]

Hey Kres. I watched every second of the Pubs part of the ABC debate.
Im loving Thompson and yes, Huckabee (he redeemed himself with me).

My issues rate as follows:

Border security. Enforce laws so employers cannot employ anyone here
illegally. They will go home...we wont have to deport their sorry asses.

The trade deficit. Implement penalties on companys who take plants and
business out of our country and at the same our peoples jobs!

Health care. Not free for all which would be free for none! For Gods sake
dont let the gov screw up anything else!!!!!!

Abolish capital gains....weve paid already dearly for our investments.

Lower taxes and cut spending.....waayyyyy downnn! Get out of the
way and let our system work.

Preserve our right to bear arms and all the other "rights" we have that
they are trying to remove.

I dont have really strong feelings about gay marriage beyond civil unions
would be fine, but marriage is to legitimate children. Wheres the problem?

Re: abortion. It should be strictly limited to the first trimester or earlier
unless the moms life is in danger and always available to vicitms of rape
and incest. I should not be freely used as birth control of conveinience
in lieu of personal responsibility. NEVER EVER PARTIAL BIRTH ABORITON/
MURDER.

Im loving Thompson and as long as Huckabee comes down hard on illegals
he will have my support.

I surfed over those characters on the other side and God, what a cast of
characters! I couldnt stomach the whole part of their debate/mud slinging.



The main issue for me is scaling the powers of the federal government way back. The only candidate who will honestly attempt to do this is Ron Paul. Everyone else might as well be the same candidate, they all stand for one thing, big government.

[kres24GT]

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. Just because some may not agree with HD's values doesn't make them wrong. I respect anyone that sticks by their values as opposed to the masses that changed their values to elect Dubya.

What I find strange is the belief that Fred is for items 1, 2 and 5 above. His past shows that he can and will be purchased. We know that he will continue along the neocon path of keeping the border wide open and as a lobbyist he will do whatever is most profitable on items 2 and 5.

Fred's profession is actor first, lobbyist second and politics is just a hobby.


They certainly do and if your beliefs say force big government to run the lvies of people even when their actions don't affect me, fine, most people are very much for this. But if stopping 2 dudes from getting hitched is among someone's top 100-500 issues I have to laugh at them. That's beyond stupidity. People who think like this should not be voting.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

But if stopping 2 dudes from getting hitched is among someone's top 100-500 issues I have to laugh at them. That's beyond stupidity. People who think like this should not be voting.

Amen!

.
.
.
.
.

[Peregrine]

Amen!

.
.
.
.
.


I say amen too....That is such a non issue as far as I am concerned...I want someone who can truly get us out of this mess...and turn things around....haven't quite chosen yet but soon.:thumbsup:

[Moby]

Amen!

.
.
.
.
.
Yes but knowing that he's not concerned with The Dollar, Inflation, Jobs, The Economy, Foreign Policy, Security, Education, Health Care, Energy, Crime, The Constitution, The Judicial System and The National Debt tells us a great deal about him. This should help us better understand where he's coming from.

I think this is pretty typical of "redneck" types. No offense, HD, you've used that word to describe yourself. I see a lot of people in South Carolina that want a "smooth talker" and guns as President. Nothing else matters to them.

[Little Red Dog]

Nailed it, Sir Moby. :thumbsup:

[radioguy]

Wow HD, you read my mind...

I was just thinking last night that It was about time to pick a favorite. In this election, I'm going to make two picks. The one I would prefer to win, and my second choice that I believe can win.

Here are the issues that are important to me when evaluating a candidate. They are listed in alphabetical order, not by importance:

1. Crime - Willingness to invest in prevention, and be tough on punishment.

2. Economy - Keeping things stable and not upsetting the apple cart. (see also "taxes" and "governments role")

3. Governments role - Not expanding into more programs such as socialized medicine, cutting back on existing entitlements, and fixing faltering programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

4. Immigration stance - Securing borders and dealing with illegal immigrants.

5. National security - Counter terrorism measures, investment in intelligence agencies and the war on terror.

6. Taxes - Keeping all taxes low, including corporate taxes.

Although it's important how candidates will deal with these issues, there's another factor that is also very important to me. It's how they come across as people. I have trusted my "Gut feelings" about people most of my life, and it has served me quite well, so even though these things are just my perceptions, and quite possibly could be wrong, I still put quite a bit of stock in them.

The things I look for are:

1. Sincerity about what they are saying.
2. Consistency of their message, regardless of the audience.
3. Their ability to deal with tough situations, as well as how they handle embarrassing situations that put them on the spot.
4. How well they communicate their beliefs... Statesmanship.
5. Are their subordinates loyal to them out of fear, or respect.
6. Transparency about their past.
7. Life experience. How much of their education was obtained from the "school of hard knocks."

Things that I don't take much stock in are:

1. Past political mistakes or party transgressions that they are up front about.
2. Past Issues in their personal life.
3. What they did before age 25.
4. Past military service.


*

With all that stated, here is how I view the top 5:

Rudy:
Positives - He's got good leadership skills. I like the way he handles pressure situations and the fact he doesn't seem to fear saying something frank or not PC, that might ruffle some feathers. I'm also impressed with the results he achieved a mayor of NYC. His stand on the war and national security is outstanding.
Negatives - I question how strongly he embraces conservative values. I also think he's had dealings with people of questionable standing in his political life. As mayor, things of that nature might be overlooked, or considered an unfortunate part of the job, but that certainly wouldn't fly if he were president. He is a bit too pro-choice, which I hope wouldn't adversely affect conservative values.

Mccain:
Positives - His ability to break partisan divides in the senate, is a plus in the current political climate. His support for the military and the Iraq war effort is also a plus. He has, hands down, the best credentials for the job, based on his military service and long career in the Senate. Nobody knows the ins and outs of Washington than he does
Negatives - His support for amnesty, and the fact he isn't being up front about it now. His lack of support for CIA interrogation methods is also troubling. He opposed the 2003 tax cuts, which sends a red flag up for me. The things I see as negative not policy related, are his age, my belief that he doesn't handle pressure situations well. I watched him speak at the 2004 RNC, and when his speech was interrupted when Michael Moore was spotted in the crowd, he didn't handle it very well at all.

Fred:
Positives - I think he comes off as the most sincere and believable in the bunch. When he communicates what he believes, you feel like the man has Americas future in mind, and isn't just saying what he thinks will appeal to the conservative base. He is the only candidate of them all, that hasn't taken a stand now, or in the past, that has raised a red flag with me.

Mitt:
I think he is pro baby the most intelligent of the bunch, and would make a fine president. His success as governor of Kennedyland alone, qualifies him to be our next president. His own family shines as a testament to the values he embraces, that no other candidate on either side can touch. Mitt would certainly make a better president than anything the democrats have to offer, but he simply isn't the candidate I would prefer.

Huck:
He has supported some questionable issues that bother me, but the truth is, he's a bit too evangelical for my taste. I'll pass.

Ron Paul:

PLEASE!

*

So, if you haven't figured it out, I'm a Fred-Head. He's a level headed man of conviction, that I believe will do the things that need to be done in this country, even if it isn't politically popular. Fred is the only candidate that hasn't said something I disagreed with during this campaign, and his no nonsense approach to addressing the hot button issues facing the country, is very appealing.

The thing is, I don't think Fred has a chance to actually win this thing. For whatever reason, he just didn't catch on with republican voters... It's too bad...

This leaves me with my back-up candidate, that does have a chance to win the nomination... It's Rudy the Rock.

There you have it ;)

[disrupter]

Oh! It's a typo!

"Ok Guys, We need to pick our pHony."

silly me, how did i not figure that out?

The GOP seems resplendent with them,
an embarrassment of riches.

that is why they seem to choose so many actors.

[Moby]

Fred:
Positives - I think he comes off as the most sincere and believable in the bunch. When he communicates what he believes, you feel like the man has Americas future in mind, and isn't just saying what he thinks will appeal to the conservative base.
He's an actor. He gets paid to seem sincere and believable. :banghead:

[LadyMod at scam.com]

He's an actor. He gets paid to seem sincere and believable. :banghead:


Just like Reagan did. :D


Personally I prefer to see how candidates have voted in the past (longer than the last 12 months). That gives a truer picture of their sincerity than any pretty words or platitudes in front of a camera.


Lady Mod

[Cat slave]

I'm just curious. What in Fred's history makes him a good a candidate for you?

Is it his lobbying efforts or his acting skills? :)

I'm not talking about how the actor presents himself in front of a camera, we know that he gets paid well for that already.


Plain, common sense and America first! Short and sweet.

[Cat slave]

Wow HD, you read my mind...

I was just thinking last night that It was about time to pick a favorite. In this election, I'm going to make two picks. The one I would prefer to win, and my second choice that I believe can win.

Here are the issues that are important to me when evaluating a candidate. They are listed in alphabetical order, not by importance:

1. Crime - Willingness to invest in prevention, and be tough on punishment.

2. Economy - Keeping things stable and not upsetting the apple cart. (see also "taxes" and "governments role")

3. Governments role - Not expanding into more programs such as socialized medicine, cutting back on existing entitlements, and fixing faltering programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

4. Immigration stance - Securing borders and dealing with illegal immigrants.

5. National security - Counter terrorism measures, investment in intelligence agencies and the war on terror.

6. Taxes - Keeping all taxes low, including corporate taxes.

Although it's important how candidates will deal with these issues, there's another factor that is also very important to me. It's how they come across as people. I have trusted my "Gut feelings" about people most of my life, and it has served me quite well, so even though these things are just my perceptions, and quite possibly could be wrong, I still put quite a bit of stock in them.

The things I look for are:

1. Sincerity about what they are saying.
2. Consistency of their message, regardless of the audience.
3. Their ability to deal with tough situations, as well as how they handle embarrassing situations that put them on the spot.
4. How well they communicate their beliefs... Statesmanship.
5. Are their subordinates loyal to them out of fear, or respect.
6. Transparency about their past.
7. Life experience. How much of their education was obtained from the "school of hard knocks."

Things that I don't take much stock in are:

1. Past political mistakes or party transgressions that they are up front about.
2. Past Issues in their personal life.
3. What they did before age 25.
4. Past military service.


*

With all that stated, here is how I view the top 5:

Rudy:
Positives - He's got good leadership skills. I like the way he handles pressure situations and the fact he doesn't seem to fear saying something frank or not PC, that might ruffle some feathers. I'm also impressed with the results he achieved a mayor of NYC. His stand on the war and national security is outstanding.
Negatives - I question how strongly he embraces conservative values. I also think he's had dealings with people of questionable standing in his political life. As mayor, things of that nature might be overlooked, or considered an unfortunate part of the job, but that certainly wouldn't fly if he were president. He is a bit too pro-choice, which I hope wouldn't adversely affect conservative values.

Mccain:
Positives - His ability to break partisan divides in the senate, is a plus in the current political climate. His support for the military and the Iraq war effort is also a plus. He has, hands down, the best credentials for the job, based on his military service and long career in the Senate. Nobody knows the ins and outs of Washington than he does
Negatives - His support for amnesty, and the fact he isn't being up front about it now. His lack of support for CIA interrogation methods is also troubling. He opposed the 2003 tax cuts, which sends a red flag up for me. The things I see as negative not policy related, are his age, my belief that he doesn't handle pressure situations well. I watched him speak at the 2004 RNC, and when his speech was interrupted when Michael Moore was spotted in the crowd, he didn't handle it very well at all.

Fred:
Positives - I think he comes off as the most sincere and believable in the bunch. When he communicates what he believes, you feel like the man has Americas future in mind, and isn't just saying what he thinks will appeal to the conservative base. He is the only candidate of them all, that hasn't taken a stand now, or in the past, that has raised a red flag with me.

Mitt:
I think he is pro baby the most intelligent of the bunch, and would make a fine president. His success as governor of Kennedyland alone, qualifies him to be our next president. His own family shines as a testament to the values he embraces, that no other candidate on either side can touch. Mitt would certainly make a better president than anything the democrats have to offer, but he simply isn't the candidate I would prefer.

Huck:
He has supported some questionable issues that bother me, but the truth is, he's a bit too evangelical for my taste. I'll pass.

Ron Paul:

PLEASE!

*

So, if you haven't figured it out, I'm a Fred-Head. He's a level headed man of conviction, that I believe will do the things that need to be done in this country, even if it isn't politically popular. Fred is the only candidate that hasn't said something I disagreed with during this campaign, and his no nonsense approach to addressing the hot button issues facing the country, is very appealing.

The thing is, I don't think Fred has a chance to actually win this thing. For whatever reason, he just didn't catch on with republican voters... It's too bad...

This leaves me with my back-up candidate, that does have a chance to win the nomination... It's Rudy the Rock.

There you have it ;)


Rudy turned me way off a long time ago whining about wanting to be humane
to the illegals in his state. Is it inhumane (oh puhleeze) to take steps to
encourge them to go home ie enforce laws???

Nope....Ill never vote for him even if I have to stay home for the first time
since I registered to vote as soon as I was 21 (that was the age back then).

How humane is it to allow illegals to reduce the wage scale and cut out
Americans, enabling corporations to keep their labor costs near nothing and
put our own out of work and then have the gall to try to sell the stuff
back to the people they put out of work??

How humane is it to allow third world pathogens into our country and our food? Think back. It used to be a huge deal and very rare thing for some
food to be recalled because of contamination and it was not because our
illustreous FDA was so good at their job....it was because we didnt have
the hygeine practices of third world workers squatting beside what they
picked, not washing up after the call of nature or any of their third world
practices. Its inhumane to allow our food to be a danger to us.

I loathe Rudy and will not vote for him as I would not vote for McCain for
his pillow talk with Teddy boy on anmesty.

RG, with all due respect to you and I know your feelings about this issue
but I have mine and Im mad as hell and we and people who feel the same
are going to fight this to the death.

Got carried away but you can see I have strong feelings about anyone who
would put lawbreakers and unruly illegals ahead of us, American citizens.

Ill sit back and watch Hitlary or Barack waltz into the WH before I vote for
either McCain or Rudy!!!!!!!

[Cat slave]

And Im a "Fred Head" too. Hes got it going on.

[Cat slave]

The main issue for me is scaling the powers of the federal government way back. The only candidate who will honestly attempt to do this is Ron Paul. Everyone else might as well be the same candidate, they all stand for one thing, big government.

Until we outsource Congress to some deserted ice flow somewhere in the frozen
reaches of the Arctic and clean house real good thats not going to happen
but Fred would make it run properly or at the very least much better.

I think that is the best we can get until the rest of it is cleaned up.

[Moby]

Plain, common sense and America first! Short and sweet.
I didn't ask for opinions of his acting skills. We know that he's a professional actor and quite good at his trade. He plays the part of a wise, America first type politician very well. He has done this in movies and does it today in a TV series. That's what he's doing during debates and interviews as well.

What I'm asking is what in his past has he actually done that makes you believe that he is a wise, America first type politician.

Is it his acting career or lobbying career?

[copycat42]

This is for RG, Frank, Cat, and the other very few conservitives on this forum.

Now is the time.

We need to pick our pony and stick with him.

I started out in the early days watching Huckabee, but now I am not sure of him. He supports my top 5 stances on the issues, but there are things I don't like, for instance His Tax Plan.

I am not sure about your issues, but my top 5 are:

1. Pro Border enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro 2nd ammendment (right to bear arms):

4. Anti Gay Marrage:

5. Anti Government Health Care:

Hucks stance on those issues alone:

1. Pro Border Enforcement.

2. Pro Life

3. Pro 2nd amemendment.

4. Anti Gay Marrage.

5. ANti Gov Health Care.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home

Fred Thompson:

Now I Like Fred, I just don't know if he can pull it off.

1. Very Pro Border Enforcement:

2. Very Pro Life:

3. Very Pro second Amendment:

4. Strongly apposes Gay Marrage:

5. Against Gove Health Care.

http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues


Duncan Hunter

I really like Duncan Hunter.

1. He is also ver pro Border Enforcement:

2. Pro Life:

3. Pro Second Ammendment

4. Aposes Gay Marrage

5. Against Gov Controlled Health Care.

http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

Rudy:
Don't like him, never have:

John Mccain:
Don't like him, never have:

Ron Paul:
Don't like him never have:

Mitt Romney:
Don't lke him never have:

I like Hunter the best but I just don't think he can pull it off.

The most important thing is we need a candidate that supports conservitive America, and that can pull off victory in the Election.

What we DON't NEED?

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Paul, or Romney.


I am curious as to your characterization of Ron Paul as not being conservative. As to the others, we need a liberal in the white house like we need a hole in the head. I look forward to your response.

respectfully,

-copycat42

[disrupter]

a zealot is not a conservative.

A conservative is measured, considered & reasonably rational.

[copycat42]

a zealot is not a conservative.

A conservative is measured, considered & reasonably rational.

Which statements are not measured, considered, or reasonably rational?
I will agree that some of his supporters are zealots, but he is a small-government conservative in every sense of the term.

[Little Red Dog]

He is extremely weak on foreign policy, doesn't really seem to have much of a plan for illegal immigration, (in NH debate) he seemed to WAAAAY underestimate the fundie-Islam threat, and his assertion that everything is tied to a shrinking dollar just doesn't hold up.

I don't mind parts of his platform, but he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the whole messy picture. And I think that it's extremely important that the next prez does.

[asroc]

you guys are gonna end up with mccain barring a repeat of the 2000 south carolina dirty tricks

but then again, the guy responsible for the "mccain fathered a black baby out of wedlock" smear is warren tompkins, who works for romney now.

should be fun drama.

[Little Red Dog]

I think McCain will take New Hampshire. Romney took a beating in NH debate. It was so obvious that no one on that stage liked him even a teeny little bit. They really slapped him with some stinging zingers.

Hell, there was more warmth between Dems and the OTHER Repubs when they did the staged "kiss and cry" during the changeover.

[Moby]

you guys are gonna end up with mccain barring a repeat of the 2000 south carolina dirty tricks

but then again, the guy responsible for the "mccain fathered a black baby out of wedlock" smear is warren tompkins, who works for romney now.

should be fun drama.
In SC Fred will win and go on to take the nomination. He's a smooth talker, acts sincere and wise, pretends to care about America and will be loved even more then Bush by the lobbyists. He is the perfect Southern Candidate and will increase the size of government and earmarks far beyond The PNAC's wildest dreams.

Imagine a President that has his hat out for 25 years and is now ready to put everything up for sale.

[copycat42]

He is extremely weak on foreign policy, doesn't really seem to have much of a plan for illegal immigration, (in NH debate) he seemed to WAAAAY underestimate the fundie-Islam threat, and his assertion that everything is tied to a shrinking dollar just doesn't hold up.

I don't mind parts of his platform, but he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the whole messy picture. And I think that it's extremely important that the next prez does.
---------------------------
fundi /islam threat:

If we were to suddenly pull out of the mid east all together, we would rob the "terrorists" of their number one and number two recruiting tools. those being , the fact that we are over there , meddling, in the first place. and the fact that we act as Israel's body guard. We need to let Israel fight its own fight, and stay out of their business.
-----------------------------

illegal immigration:
no welfare, no jobs, no services, no birthright citizenship for illegals, no incentive to come or stay.

----------------------------
shrinking dollar:

our economy would be much more stable if those pieces of paper in your wallet were backed by an equal value of a real commodity, and not a unit of debt.


---------------------------
messy picture:
I think he has a very good grasp of the world situation, and a firm understanding of how things got the way they are.
-------------------------

I look forward to your reply.
respectfully,

-copycat42





p.s. i just realized that we are a dog and a cat discussing politics.

[copycat42]

Wow HD, you read my mind... .................................................. ...............................................

Ron Paul:

PLEASE!

*
..............


at least critique him, In my opinion, he's the only honest person running.

seriously, is not the constitution the basis for the whole process of government?
shouldn't we, at least, examine the policies of our candidate of choice not in the light of what they say they'll do, but by how much of what they say they'll do is LEGAL. If not, there is the potential to send a criminal to the white house. We don't need any MORE crooks in Washington.

my top 5 issues are:

1: The federal government's recognition that the constitution LIMITS its power, and that state law should trump federal law in internal matters, and the RIGHTS of the individual trump that. (the RIGHTS of the one outweigh the DESIRES of the many)

2: Ending the federal income tax. (this would force the federal government to cut spending) no welfare! no foreign aid! no government bailouts of failed companies! more money in my own pocket! working people could afford health care, because if government weren't paying, the prices would go down ( or the hospitals that stayed expensive would close)

3: immigration reform. no welfare for illegal aliens, no work for illegal aliens, no school for illegal aliens, no health care for illegal aliens, personally, i think we should send a bill for all the services we provide for illegals to their respective countries. and then refuse to trade with them until they pay.

4: stop policing the world. We do not have the right to spread "freedom" by force to other countries. If their people don't have the will, or the means, it is not our responsibility to help. (however, individual Americans should have the right to support those causes)

5: end the fractional reserve system of banking. return to a system where our money represents a commodity of real value, and not a unit of debt.

I intend to vote for Ron Paul in our primary, and in the general election. barring that, I'll vote for the libertarian candidate in the general election.

[disrupter]

Actually that was a reference to the other GOPs being zealots more than about Paul.

They are zealots about some 'islamofascism' fantasy.
Rudy: 911! 911! 911!
the son of a bitch left firefighters with crap radios which is why many/most died on 911.
They get all fired up about presumptions of moral superiority while they behave despicably both personally as in their congressional corruption.

They have zeal without intellectual content or credence.

Paul is intellectually radical, but he doesn't need a brass band to back up his brains.

He is about intellectual ideas, not so much about pushing hot buttons.

Paul proposes radical, and perhaps accurate ideas, but he does talk about doing some of them in a measured fashion. His demeanor is relatively calm. He tends to present & attack ideas, not so much the other candidates. The man actually has a brain, not just a script. I find it hard to imagine this pretty likeable guy doing intentionally malicious things.
Paul wants to conserve the preeminence of the constitution.
Paul wants to conserve civil liberties.
Paul wants to conserve personal responsibility.
Paul doesn't want to continue to inject & project ourselves all over the flipping planet, at great expense to ourselves.

If securing the border is such a given McCain, wtf aren't you doing that now?
Why delay it with demands of 'packaging' it with everything else?

[disrupter]

The foundation of the US government is [should be] the American people.

The constitution is an artifact created & ratified by the American people.

The people first, the constitution a revered close second until the people choose to amend or override it.

[Little Red Dog]

---------------------------
fundi /islam threat:

If we were to suddenly pull out of the mid east all together, we would rob the "terrorists" of their number one and number two recruiting tools. those being , the fact that we are over there , meddling, in the first place. and the fact that we act as Israel's body guard. We need to let Israel fight its own fight, and stay out of their business.
-----------------------------

illegal immigration:
no welfare, no jobs, no services, no birthright citizenship for illegals, no incentive to come or stay.

----------------------------
shrinking dollar:

our economy would be much more stable if those pieces of paper in your wallet were backed by an equal value of a real commodity, and not a unit of debt.


---------------------------
messy picture:
I think he has a very good grasp of the world situation, and a firm understanding of how things got the way they are.
-------------------------

I look forward to your reply.
respectfully,

-copycat42





p.s. i just realized that we are a dog and a cat discussing politics.

fundi-Islam threat: Is aggravated by our physical presence in the Middle East. But is not the sole cause. Cannot be eliminated by simply withdrawing. Agree, to a point on Israel, but because there are nukes involved, and because Israel is a historical ally of the U.S., it 'ain't gonna happen.

illegal immigration: How is he going to deport 12 million people? And those are just the ones he knows about. Logically, it can't be done. And technically, babies born on American soil, even if their parents are illegal, are American citizens. So then you have to forcibly separate families. Or make the children wards of the Federal government. The number of lawsuits that would ensue would cost taxpayers billions.

Additionally, trust me, some of the illegal immigrants who are here would rather live their entire lives underground if it meant a chance of a better future for their kids. They'll just go underground. And there will ALWAYS be an underground economy for them to work in. Always has been, always will be.

shrinking dollar: No argument there. But in a country with no discernable personal savings rate, THAT 'ain't gonna happen overnight either. Even if we stopped borrowing from the Chinese this very minute, it doesn't change the fact that we are in debt up to our eyeballs. Pulling out of Iraq will save us a bunch, but it's not gonna save our dollar.

Like it or not, our economy is built and maintained on consumerism. You cannot change that overnight - or even in four years - to an asset-based ecomony. Without some serious personal sacrifice on the part of ALL Americans. That will require a major psychological shift of the national psyche. Ain't gonna happen in 4 years.

Overall pic: I'm going on what I heard him say during the NH debate. And I did not hear a guy who has thought it through.

Abolish the IRS? Substitute a sales tax? Not only will THAT not happen, but a sales tax would proportionally affect those who can least afford it. The poor would wind up spending a greater portion of their income than the rich. And how do states with fewer residents (and the ability to generate less sales tax) pay for maintenance of basic infrastructure, etc?

Tax reform, yes. But abolishing income tax is just not realistic or practical.

Pull out of Iraq, yes. But attack the problem of fundi-Islam from all directions, too.

Secure our borders, yes. But begin by at least ascertaining who the hell is already here. Get them out of the shadows. And to do that, a carrot is much more effective than a stick.

To my way of thinking, he has many of the same same problems Obama has: He sounds good at first, but there's not much "there" there.

[copycat42]

fundi-Islam threat: Is aggravated by our physical presence in the Middle East. But is not the sole cause. Cannot be eliminated by simply withdrawing. Agree, to a point on Israel, but because there are nukes involved, and because Israel is a historical ally of the U.S., it 'ain't gonna happen.

illegal immigration: How is he going to deport 12 million people? And those are just the ones he knows about. Logically, it can't be done. And technically, babies born on American soil, even if their parents are illegal, are American citizens. So then you have to forcibly separate families. Or make the children wards of the Federal government. The number of lawsuits that would ensue would cost taxpayers billions.

Additionally, trust me, some of the illegal immigrants who are here would rather live their entire lives underground if it meant a chance of a better future for their kids. They'll just go underground. And there will ALWAYS be an underground economy for them to work in. Always has been, always will be.

shrinking dollar: No argument there. But in a country with no discernable personal savings rate, THAT 'ain't gonna happen overnight either. Even if we stopped borrowing from the Chinese this very minute, it doesn't change the fact that we are in debt up to our eyeballs. Pulling out of Iraq will save us a bunch, but it's not gonna save our dollar.

Like it or not, our economy is built and maintained on consumerism. You cannot change that overnight - or even in four years - to an asset-based ecomony. Without some serious personal sacrifice on the part of ALL Americans. That will require a major psychological shift of the national psyche. Ain't gonna happen in 4 years.

Overall pic: I'm going on what I heard him say during the NH debate. And I did not hear a guy who has thought it through.

Abolish the IRS? Substitute a sales tax? Not only will THAT not happen, but a sales tax would proportionally affect those who can least afford it. The poor would wind up spending a greater portion of their income than the rich. And how do states with fewer residents (and the ability to generate less sales tax) pay for maintenance of basic infrastructure, etc?

Tax reform, yes. But abolishing income tax is just not realistic or practical.

Pull out of Iraq, yes. But attack the problem of fundi-Islam from all directions, too.

Secure our borders, yes. But begin by at least ascertaining who the hell is already here. Get them out of the shadows. And to do that, a carrot is much more effective than a stick.

To my way of thinking, he has many of the same same problems Obama has: He sounds good at first, but there's not much "there" there.


This is the most informed (and well stated) political opinion i have ever heard.
while i disagree with you (and Paul) on some very minor points of principle, i cannot refute the practical aspects of your argument. I concede the point, on the basis that you may be better informed than I.

i truly wish that more people like you were voting.

respectfully,
-copycat42

[Little Red Dog]

:D I concede my superiority...

No, just joking. But I really think people need to not get swept up in the rhetoric, and look carefully at HOW the candidate proposes to accomplish all the things he or she says they will do.

Some of the stuff being said just isn't practical. Even though it sounds good.

Another thing both Dems and Repubs said during the debate was that if they had "actionable" intelligence that OBL was in Pakistan, they would just go get him, with or without Pakistan's cooperation.

Now, in this country, if you know your neighbor has stolen your frying pan, and you want it back, you don't just go into his house without his permission and take it.

First, you ask him nicely to give it back. Then you ask him less nicely to give it back. Then you call the cops and file a complaint. And THEY go and get it back.

But walk into his house without his permission? That will earn you a B&E and a vacation courtsey of Uncle Sam. Hell, in Texas, that would get you shot dead - and TX law wouldn't touch him.

Same difference with Pakistan and OBL. Can't just go in there and take him. Gotta make it more trouble for them to keep him than kick him out someplace where we can snatch him.

And remember, Pakistan has nukes and a fair number of fundies of their own. Not good to poke them with sharp sticks.

So it may SOUND good. But in reality, if the situation actually came to pass while any of them were in office, they couldn't just "go get him".

[disrupter]

A too asset based economy can risk illiquidity.

I am sort of questioning long held, marginally conservative notions of my own.

There are probably some kind of delicate balances to maintain between liquidity & structural integrity. Perhaps variant balances [proportions?] for various strategies, goals.

perhaps even slightly manipulatively so to shift blocks of largely frozen assets around. [targeted liquidity?][minimal necessary liquidity?][elegant liquidity?]

In a sense the entire Universe and perhaps infinite technological progress are 'frozen' assets, perhaps a bit theoretical too.
Like a Chinese puzzle you can theoretically have a tiny void of 'waste' that allows for the manipulation of huge unimaginable things. [asset configuration?]
[strategic asset configuration] strategy of course depends on guesses about the/some expected/desired future.

I have a feeling it is probably impossible to rescind the economic cycle. We seem to have taken a very long economic expansion in, but we seem to be letting that expansion escape us. Like breathing i suppose. The idea is to use it to articulately target the removal of unusable things while hanging on to useful asset values.

[disrupter]

Our record on 'knowing' where the frying pan is bankrupt.

Rumsfeld on WMDs, 'We know where they are.'
Two or three 'certain' missile potshots at Saddam?

'Actionable Intelligence' at this point is an insane oxymoron.

[Cat slave]

:D I concede my superiority...

No, just joking. But I really think people need to not get swept up in the rhetoric, and look carefully at HOW the candidate proposes to accomplish all the things he or she says they will do.

Some of the stuff being said just isn't practical. Even though it sounds good.

Another thing both Dems and Repubs said during the debate was that if they had "actionable" intelligence that OBL was in Pakistan, they would just go get him, with or without Pakistan's cooperation.

Now, in this country, if you know your neighbor has stolen your frying pan, and you want it back, you don't just go into his house without his permission and take it.

First, you ask him nicely to give it back. Then you ask him less nicely to give it back. Then you call the cops and file a complaint. And THEY go and get it back.

But walk into his house without his permission? That will earn you a B&E and a vacation courtsey of Uncle Sam. Hell, in Texas, that would get you shot dead - and TX law wouldn't touch him.

Same difference with Pakistan and OBL. Can't just go in there and take him. Gotta make it more trouble for them to keep him than kick him out someplace where we can snatch him.

And remember, Pakistan has nukes and a fair number of fundies of their own. Not good to poke them with sharp sticks.

So it may SOUND good. But in reality, if the situation actually came to pass while any of them were in office, they couldn't just "go get him".


All that and youre humble too!:D

[copycat42]

A too asset based economy can risk illiquidity.

I am sort of questioning long held, marginally conservative notions of my own.

There are probably some kind of delicate balances to maintain between liquidity & structural integrity. Perhaps variant balances [proportions?] for various strategies, goals.

perhaps even slightly manipulatively so to shift blocks of largely frozen assets around. [targeted liquidity?][minimal necessary liquidity?][elegant liquidity?]

In a sense the entire Universe and perhaps infinite technological progress are 'frozen' assets, perhaps a bit theoretical too.
Like a Chinese puzzle you can theoretically have a tiny void of 'waste' that allows for the manipulation of huge unimaginable things. [asset configuration?]
[strategic asset configuration] strategy of course depends on guesses about the/some expected/desired future.

I have a feeling it is probably impossible to rescind the economic cycle. We seem to have taken a very long economic expansion in, but we seem to be letting that expansion escape us. Like breathing i suppose. The idea is to use it to articulately target the removal of unusable things while hanging on to useful asset values.
--------------------------------------------
lack of liquidity:
I don't know anybody (country or individual) who wouldn't take gold as payment. if our currency was backed by gold (or some other equally liquid commodity) I seriously doubt we would have a problem with liquidity.

respectfully,
-copycat42

[Cat slave]

I didn't ask for opinions of his acting skills. We know that he's a professional actor and quite good at his trade. He plays the part of a wise, America first type politician very well. He has done this in movies and does it today in a TV series. That's what he's doing during debates and interviews as well.

What I'm asking is what in his past has he actually done that makes you believe that he is a wise, America first type politician.

Is it his acting career or lobbying career?

So does that mean you take people at face value and dont look past that?
The past is the past and weve all done things that given more maturity we
would do different.
So youre holding his abilities as an actor against him?

[Cat slave]

I think McCain will take New Hampshire. Romney took a beating in NH debate. It was so obvious that no one on that stage liked him even a teeny little bit. They really slapped him with some stinging zingers.

Hell, there was more warmth between Dems and the OTHER Repubs when they did the staged "kiss and cry" during the changeover.

Its all in the eye of the beholder as I saw it pretty much an equal phoney
display from all and wouldnt swallow it for a minute.

[Little Red Dog]

All that and youre humble too!:D

I know. Looks, brilliance, and humility. I AM quite the package. Sometimes I wonder how my mirror holds it all. :D

[disrupter]

His record reflects his 'content'

his reputation is for being lazy.

did i just make an unintended endorsement for Hillary?

[Little Red Dog]

Its all in the eye of the beholder as I saw it pretty much an equal phoney
display from all and wouldnt swallow it for a minute.

I think some of them have pretty good working relationships with each other, but it WAS a rather gagging waste of airtime.

[Moby]

So youre holding his abilities as an actor against him?
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that people should read his resume.

The only good things I've ever heard about Fred is his acting skills. "He seems sincere, wise, smooth talker ...."

I've interviewed 100s of people and I've always found that the resume, the recent past in particular shows far more then what a perspective applicant has to say. I just find it strange that people voted for Bush without reading that resume and now those same people want to vote for Fred without reading his either.

I just want American voters to educate themselves and not fall for the same song and dance as before.

That's why I keep asking for specifics when people praise the actor or attack the female. So far no one has stepped up to see past the podium.

[hdmarketing]

Just like Reagan did. :D


Personally I prefer to see how candidates have voted in the past (longer than the last 12 months). That gives a truer picture of their sincerity than any pretty words or platitudes in front of a camera.


Lady Mod

Yes, but also remember, Ronald was also one of the best presidents in our history too:thumbsup:

[hdmarketing]

Fred:
Positives - I think he comes off as the most sincere and believable in the bunch. When he communicates what he believes, you feel like the man has Americas future in mind, and isn't just saying what he thinks will appeal to the conservative base. He is the only candidate of them all, that hasn't taken a stand now, or in the past, that has raised a red flag with me.
Fred I think is the ONLY candidate that has not changed his stance on anything just to pick up some votes.

He is calm, easy going, he doesn't get hot headed, and just all around the kind of person I want to run this country.

I just really don't think he is going to pull it off.


Huck:
He has supported some questionable issues that bother me, but the truth is, he's a bit too evangelical for my taste. I'll pass.
I am not big on christianity, too many phonies, and most of them would squeeze the last dime out of a starving wioman and not think twice.
Huck?
He started out good, but then as he started talking his reality came out, and he blew it.
If he wins it I will vote for him, and I will support him.

Ron Paul:

PLEASE!
You said it....

I'm a Fred-Head. He's a level headed man of conviction, that I believe will do the things that need to be done in this country, even if it isn't politically popular. Fred is the only candidate that hasn't said something I disagreed with during this campaign, and his no nonsense approach to addressing the hot button issues facing the country, is very appealing.
Heh, Heh, Heh, watch the forum blow up with this comment:lmao2:
Great Minds Think Alike!!!!

This leaves me with my back-up candidate, that does have a chance to win the nomination... It's Rudy the Rock.

There you have it ;)

Sorry, I just don't like Rudy, way too liberal, and then there is that thing, you know the one I am real strong on, the gay marrage thing which he supports.

I will say this much, I will vote for anyone that runs against Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.
I only hope McCain does NOT get the ticket or else we really are fucked.
That means Either Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or McCain will be president.:disbelief:
:help:

Like I said before, for the now, I have picked Fred.
I just sent him some money to support him.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I am not big on christianity, too many phonies, and most of them would squeeze the last dime out of a starving wioman and not think twice.
Huck?
He started out good, but then as he started talking his reality came out, and he blew it.
If he wins it I will vote for him, and I will support him.

WHY? Why would you support someone you don't like simply because he's running under the Republican ticket?

That's insane.


Lady Mod

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Yes, but also remember, Ronald was also one of the best presidents in our history too:thumbsup:


His biggest mistake was having Bush senior as Vice President.


Lady Mod

[Cat slave]

I think some of them have pretty good working relationships with each other, but it WAS a rather gagging waste of airtime.

I thought so too.:thumbsup:

[Cat slave]

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that people should read his resume.

The only good things I've ever heard about Fred is his acting skills. "He seems sincere, wise, smooth talker ...."

I've interviewed 100s of people and I've always found that the resume, the recent past in particular shows far more then what a perspective applicant has to say. I just find it strange that people voted for Bush without reading that resume and now those same people want to vote for Fred without reading his either.

I just want American voters to educate themselves and not fall for the same song and dance as before.

That's why I keep asking for specifics when people praise the actor or attack the female. So far no one has stepped up to see past the podium.

Hes always been a conservative which he claimed to be. Thats not to say
everything he does is gold but hes the best thing Ive seen come along in
a long time........though Im still an Alan Keyes fan, but thats not going to
happen in my lifetime or probably his!

I want someone who puts America first whether it will cost a vote along the
way or not. Secure our borders, ports, go for fair trade not free trade,
fix SS so promises can be kept, and always, always put America first!
Wouldnt that be novel? Its been a long, dry spell!

[hdmarketing]

WHY? Why would you support someone you don't like simply because he's running under the Republican ticket?

That's insane.


Lady Mod
Because Lady Mod, if I am supporting Huck that means I am NOT supporting Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or McCain.

It's NOT insane. If I don't go and vote, then it's like giving a vote to the opponent!

The people that piss me off the most are the ones that sit around bitching about how things are, but when you ask them if they voted they say no.

You know what I tell people like that?

I tell them to shut the hell up.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Because Lady Mod, if I am supporting Huck that means I am NOT supporting Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or McCain.

It's NOT insane. If I don't go and vote, then it's like giving a vote to the opponent!

The people that piss me off the most are the ones that sit around bitching about how things are, but when you ask them if they voted they say no.

You know what I tell people like that?

I tell them to shut the hell up.


So, vote the one that comes closest to what you personally believe, it could be an independent. But to vote "Party" for the sake of voting "Party" is still insane.

Lady Mod

[hdmarketing]

So, vote the one that comes closest to what you personally believe, it could be an independent. But to vote "Party" for the sake of voting "Party" is still insane.

Lady Mod

Lady Mod, I am not voting party, I am simply placing a suposition that if he gets the ticket I will support him.

I only registered as a republican in the past election, because of the likes of Kerry.
I just got so pissed.
That guy is such a phony.

Like I said. "If Huck gets the ticket I will support him".
I would rather see Thompson.

And I would Much Rather see Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keys.

[Cat slave]

I would rather see Alan Keyes than anyone. I like his brilliance, his knowledge
of the constitution and his spunk!!!!!! No namby pamby from him!

[Cat slave]

Point of fact: Partial birth abortions are already illegal under Roe v Wade. They are only ever performed when the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy is NOT terminated. As, for an example in an ectopic pregnancy, when the mother would almost certainly die if the pregnancy were continued to full term.

Additionally, under Roe v Wade, abortions are already limited to first trimester.

Anti-abortion activists would have you believe otherwise, but it's simply not true. And if they have their way, abortion would be unavailable to no woman - not even victims of rape or incest.

Abortion rights supporters want Roe v Wade to remain as it stands. And as it stands, abortion is not recommended by any doctor or birth control clinic as a method of contraception.

Whether the woman who chooses to have an abortion is using it as such, is not something that the state can determine. The woman's true motivations are known only to her.

In fact, many women who keep their pregnancies are pro-choice. And the word here is "choice". Just because a woman CAN have an abortion doesn't automatically mean she will.




Funny. Many non-Republicans felt the same way about "your" cast of characters.

Did you not catch any of the mud-slinging on the Republican debate? There was plenty of it being splattered.

Politics is a dirty business.

Yes, I had my barf bags nearby for all the debates. I dont have a problem
recognizing garbage when I see it and I know when something smells!

Im not into abortion debating tonight so Ill let that be it.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Like I said. "If Huck gets the ticket I will support him".
I would rather see Thompson.

And I would Much Rather see Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keys.

How is this NOT voting the Party? That is exactly what it sounds like.

Are you saying that if an Independent or Democrat actually came closer to what you personally believe than Huckabee that you would support them instead of a Republican?


Or are you a Party man?


Lady Mod

[Moby]

I want someone who puts America first whether it will cost a vote along the way or not. Secure our borders, ports, go for fair trade not free trade, fix SS so promises can be kept, and always, always put America first! Wouldnt that be novel? Its been a long, dry spell!
This is just getting to be funny.

Fred is the man that is more like Bush then anyone else running. He ACTS like he's different but he's an actor.

He is also a lobbyist that helped make the Bush family big bank. He's supported by many PNAC members and he's even a fellow at the AEI.

His history and his current actions show that he will be the most Bush like. He just acts like he won't be and I'm surprised that people buy into it without having anything to hang their hat on. If you want things to stay the same then he's your man.

If you want things to be different then read his resume before you give him your support.

[disrupter]

Cat Slave supports torturing human beings, but doesn't support abortion choice?

I guess that makes sense, torture a mother who doesn't feel ready to bear a child by forcing her to have that child.

Or maybe she just wants to have a good supply of people around to get that satisfying feeling you get when you torture someone. Oops, it is only satisfying when you can delude yourself that they are somehow some kind of monster, even though you only SUSPECT they know something.

Thank God i am a rational, pragmatic atheist.

[Cat slave]

I am in TN. Fred represented my state well for the most part. My only
complaint was that he didnt cause more of a ruckus sometimes but thats
just his way.

This new century finds us in a new world against new foes and new challenges.
Again, Fred is the only one who says what I feel and think. Thats it and thats
all. I believe him. I didnt believe Bush. I was just too afraid of Gore and Kerry
not to vote for Bush. Thats is and thats all. Call it protest votes. Of course
we got much more than we bargained for....a dictator who tells the American
people to shove it! Bushs refusal to secure our border and protect American
jobs and put Americans ahead of Mexicans is loathsome beyond words and
deserving of the legacy he will leave, though we dont deserve it!!

Im a Fred head and I know all about his past and present. He was my senator
and he didnt lie then and isnt lying now. The big question is if enough people
will recognize the difference from the other pubs and step up to the plate
and support someone who wants America to thrive in spite of everything.

[Cat slave]

Different is not always an improvement! Sometimes its worse. Bush was
"different"......see!

[Betty Blowtorch]

Will rednecks never learn?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5060/republicansvoteil5.png

DOES YOUR ASSHOLE FEEL SORE???

If you really enjoy that feeling, just keep voting Republican
and you'll be assured of many more years of rectal pleasure.

[Frankg]

Will rednecks never learn?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5060/republicansvoteil5.png

DOES YOUR ASSHOLE FEEL SORE???

If you really enjoy that feeling, just keep voting Republican
and you'll be assured of many more years of rectal pleasure.

I'd rather have a sore asshole than none at all which is what will happen if the leftist loonies are in charge of homeland security

[Betty Blowtorch]

I'd rather have a sore asshole than none at all
which is what will happen if the leftist loonies
are in charge of homeland security
Uh, right...

The Republicans http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6255/avatarcheneymonsteran1.jpg http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5160/avatarbushbigoohhfy7.png
did such a good job of protecting us on 9-11.


And they brought the perpetrator of 9-11,
Osama bin Laden, to justice so quickly.

Right, Frankie? http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1927/avatarosamahippiehq3.jpg

[Cat slave]

Hey, Frank.....BBTs mo look familiar??

[Cat slave]

LOL....at least we know where "ours" is!:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[disrupter]

Chertoff will keep this nation as safe as he kept New Orleans during Katrina.

Certainly doesn't make me feel particularly secure.

Trying to have a rational discussion with right wing fanatics is like trying to communicate with oxen. Clear articulate words are pointless, only a cattle prod gets the message across.