Who would you like to see as US President in 2008?

[BrickCop]

Fast forward to 2008- who would you like to see as US President?

It has to be somebody who can actually be President (EX: not W Bush or Clinton- term limits). They do not have to be politicians but the person has to be living...otherwise most of us would probably list Truman, JFK, Ike, FDR or Reagan. :D

Non- US folks are welcome to give an opinion (their answers may be as entertaining as they are interesting).;)

My picks:

John McCain- War Hero, does not pander, not afraid to go against his own Party in speaking his mind, seems to be able to work ok with the Dems.

Mitt Romney- He is a conservative Republican Governor of a liberal state (MA) so he must be doing something right.

[jrablee]

Condi Rice - It will drive Hillary absolutley crazy

[Josey Wales]

Without a doubt, and I am very certain he will be the Republican nominee: BILL FRIST. Heart surgeon turned politician, he is a Reagan conservative. He's got my support, that is unless Dick Cheney can work.



Stay safe,

JW

[retired]

Bodie!:D :D

[jorkassyd]

Or Delta...:D

[Delta784]

Mitt Romney.

I have way too many skeletons in my closet to run myself. :D

[wcucj]

Clinton can run again in 2008. The term limit is based on consecutive terms. Meaning he only has to sit out four years and can run and be elected again.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by wcucj
Clinton can run again in 2008. The term limit is based on consecutive terms. Meaning he only has to sit out four years and can run and be elected again.

No, he can't.

If he could, he would have run this year.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html

[TrollEater]

Originally posted by Delta784
No, he can't.

If he could, he would have run this year.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am22.html

Thank you Jesus for the wise people who made this ammendment to the Constitution.

[Josey Wales]

Thank God this is incorrect...

Clinton can run again in 2008. The term limit is based on consecutive terms. Meaning he only has to sit out four years and can run and be elected again.

see Amendment XXII.

What I want to know is why you think we would make the same mistake a third time. After Monica incident was revealed, a poll was taken based upon the 1992 election. The result was Clinton losing very badly to Bush 41.

Clinton will be regarded as not only one of our worst presidents, probably the worst ever, and certainly the most criminal.


Adios,

JW

[ZmanCarlvr]

Originally posted by Josey Wales
Clinton will be regarded as not only one of our worst presidents, probably the worst ever, and certainly the most criminal.


How so??? If Clinton was so horrible, then why is he highly regarded with many people, including conservatives??

And with the Monica Thing... ALmost every president committed Adultery while in office...

And I salute the man for gettin his dick sucked... he's a man... and monica had a mouth.


It takes two to tango, and I think in that case, Monica did more work than Bill did.

Yes he lied, that is the only problem with it that I see.

I think that everybody talking about it and calling him horrible because of monica is bull****....

And I agree with BrickCop about McCain. I think he would be good in office.

-Z

[Delta784]

Originally posted by ZmanCarlvr

And with the Monica Thing... ALmost every president committed Adultery while in office...

No one else ever lied about it, under oath.

Bill Clinton committed perjury, which is a serious felony. There is a former Boston cop, Kenny Conley, who is facing 36 months in Federal prison because he was convicted of perjury in a Federal court.

And before you say that lying about sex is okay, there is a former VA Psychiatrist who is now serving a Federal prison sentence for committing perjury about sexual acts with a patient.

[markheel]

Problem is he lied under oath. As the chief law enforcement official of the US the President should be expected to uphold the most basic part of our legal system.

I know this is a simple argument that has been going on for along time, but if you can't seperate adultery from perjury I probably can't make you see it.

[benchmademan]

there hasn't been a president in history without questionable morality. that's an unfortunate aspect of humanity. many people consider W. Bush to be a man of very high moral standard but there is a significant portion of the country that feel that even he has mislead people about 9/11 and iraq. and most of them are more concerned with the state of world politics than a man's sexual indescresions. i wouldn't (and didn't) vote for clinton nor would i vote for his wife. i honestly don't see any candidates that i can stand behind emerging from either of the major parties. i'm interested in McCain. other than that i'm just hoping i can get my mind off of politics. it's too depressing.

[kirch]

I think it'd be interesting to see Colin Powell run. I don't know if I'd like to see him in office, as I don't know a lot about his politics. But an honorably retired general of color that served as Sec. of State? That's gotta be appealing to a lot of people.

[Josey Wales]

Can any of you Clinton Cultists please tell just what Clinton did during his eight years in office that would even qualify as medicore let alone good? He sure as hell did nothing that could be even remotely classified as great.

He did spout big lies often enough that people believed. He undoubtedly could have made ol' Joe Goebbels envious.


happy holidays,

JW

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by jrablee
Condi Rice - It will drive Hillary absolutley crazy

I agree!

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by ZmanCarlvr
How so??? If Clinton was so horrible, then why is he highly regarded with many people, including conservatives??

And with the Monica Thing... ALmost every president committed Adultery while in office...


Yes he lied, that is the only problem with it that I see.



He's not highly regarded by any conservatives I know of....

And the Monica thing was the least thing he did in office. He allowed the sale of missile and satellite technology to the Chinese for a $25,000 contribution to the DNC by the Chinese Army. The Chinese are not our friends.... He also decimated the military.

And I seriously doubt that Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan or either of the Bushs committed adultry while in the White House....

[Cop Writer]

Here it is...

Colin Powell
Condi Rice

Talk about stealing votes from the liberals!!!

By the way, did you know Colin Powell's name was mispronounced so much during the first Gulf War that now that is the accepted pronounciation of his name? Reporters are so FN stupid! The man's name is Colin (CALL-IN) Powell not Colon like the organ!!! What JAs!

[Josey Wales]

I hate to break the news to you, but Colin Powell is a Democrat in Republican clothing. In fact, he is a moderate Democrat. If he's the nominee, he ain't getting my vote. I am not too sure where Dr. Rice is on the political scale.


Good luck,

JW

[Cop Writer]

uh....okay

[Josey Wales]

Cop Writer,

At the 2000 Republican Convention, Powell gave an infamous speech in which he voiced strong support for Affirmative Action. He is also pro-choice, and he has made comments in support of gun control. Check the 'net for his very liberal record.

In 2000 Powell was mentioned as a VP choice. That consideration was very quickly withdrawn because such a choice would have alienated conservatives. In fact, on a talk show at the time it was debated that a Powell nomination would ruin the Republican party. I agree with that conclusion.


Good luck,

JW

[PC August]

Was Clinton even worse than Warren Harding? Well maybe he was, I wasn't around for Harding.

I admire John McCain. I don't know how he'd handle the big show but I'd like to find out more about him.

[Josey Wales]

PC,

Are you referring to Teapot Dome? If so, Clinton makes Harding look saintly.


Take care,

JW

[PC August]

Heh heh heh, well saintly might be a stretch for ol' "Teapot Dome", but your opinions on Bubba are noted.

[JERSEY BUBBA]

Enough,

Damn you, good sir. Clinton is no Bubba and to associate him with the name disgraces all Bubbas everywhere. :)

And as far as McCain goes, he's far too Left for my taste.

Bubba

[bradruth]

I'd like to see McCain or Powell.

[OBird]

Some Fox News polling numbers (on who people would vote for POTUS if they were running in 2008) that just came out earlier today:

Hillary Clinton: 40%
Bill Frist: 33%
Other/Not sure: 27%


Hillary Clinton: 41%
George Pataki: 35%
Other/Not sure: 24%


Hillary Clinton: 46%
Jeb Bush: 35%
Other/Not sure: 19%


John Kerry: 45%
Jeb Bush: 37%
Other/Not sure: 18%


Not lookin' good... :( I'm starting to think that Guliani is the most winnable candidate.

[Josey Wales]

I am not sure of the predictive value of any 2008 polling data that comes out even before the winner of this year's election is sworn in. I'd bet that in 1988 no one even heard of Clinton.

I do not think any Republican can win if the conservative base is alienated. Guilliani has demonstrated himself to be slightly more conservative than Powell, which ain't saying much. I do think Frist is the absolute best candidate to win the presidency in '08, and I am very confident he can whip Hillary. Remember, he does not have the name recognition of Hillary. He also has the necessary apparatus in place establish a national presence.

If the candidates are Hillary and Powell or Hillary and Guilliani, where is the choice? I would have to sit that one out because either way we'll have a liberal Democratic government taking away our rights. If either wins, say adios to the Second Amendment.


Good luck,

JW

[Welpe]

Jesse Jackson with Al Sharpton as his VP.

[Delta784]

Polling numbers at this stage are pointless.

Hillary is a fatally-flawed candidate, and her shortcomings will be brought to full light during the 2008 campaign. There is NO WAY that she will be elected President.

[Tennsix]

Al Bundy

[keith758]

Bill Frist for President
Condi Rice for Vice President.

[retdetsgt]

The problem is the far right and the far left dominate each of the primaries. So when election time comes, we get the far extremes of each party. The last candidate I remotely liked was Reagan. He was pretty far right, but that was needed to bring the far left government closer to center. I think most Americans are like me, they end up voting against a candidate rather than for one.

[Josey Wales]

retdetsgt,

I do think America is basically conservative. I have never voted against a candidate, I have voted for the one I wanted to win. I do think that the most fundemental problem plaguing us today is the very slanted press. Could we really expect other than what we got in '92 & '96 when 89% of the members of the press covering these elections voted for Clinton? Then in '00 they sure has hell tried desperately to rehabilitate their image by distancing themselves from their support for Clinton.

I can easily be a one-issue voter regarding partial-birth abortion. It is nothing short of legalized first degree murder, melding us nicely with Hitler's Nazi regime!

Reagan did not bring the nation closer to the center as much as he convinced Americans of his message, and he did this in spite of the vicious press that despised him! Many, many Americans were converted to conservatives thanks to Reagan.

Adios,

JW

[retired]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
I think most Americans are like me, they end up voting against a candidate rather than for one.

That's exactly what I did in this last election.:(

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by Josey Wales
retdetsgt,

I do think America is basically conservative. I have never voted against a candidate, I have voted for the one I wanted to win. I do think that the most fundemental problem plaguing us today is the very slanted press.

I agree about the press, but I think most Americans are more to the center, possible just to the right a little. If most Americans were conservative, Clinton would have never been elected and the 2000 would have been a landslide against Gore.

[code3_K9]

Dont forget the Gov of California is trying to apeal the constiution, so that he can run for Pres. in I beleive 2012...

Would anyone honestly vote for Arnold???

( I might ) :eek:

As for 2008, Id go with Powell...

[Josey Wales]

retdetsgt,

During the '96 State of the Union Address, Clinton's speech was as conservative as anything Reagan did. Clinton knew the political orientation of the majority of the nation and comported himself appropriately. However, he was an authentic dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Reference Gore, it has been historically difficult to defeat the VP of a two-term president. While JFK was able to defeat Nixon, the two elections are very much identical. Finally, while I have recognized the cultural shift of our country, I still am of the opinion that we are a conservative culture as is evidenced by the resurgance of religion.


Happy holidays,


JW

[Josey Wales]

Code3,

Originally posted by code3_K9
Dont forget the Gov of California is trying to apeal the constiution, so that he can run for Pres. in I beleive 2012...

Would anyone honestly vote for Arnold???

( I might ) :eek:

As for 2008, Id go with Powell...

The movement to amend our Constitution is failing badly. Reference Arnold vs. Powell, it would be difficult to tell which one is more liberal. They both are social liberals, and I know for a damn fact Arnold will take away our guns. Continuing, both are supportive of fetal violence/infanticide. Sadly Clinton might have been more conservative than either of these two...and Clinton was a true liberal.


Adios,

JW

[Kitten]

Condi Rice / Ann Coulter.

Or maybe: Hannity / Coulter. ;)

*shrug* Interesting question.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by Josey Wales
Finally, while I have recognized the cultural shift of our country, I still am of the opinion that we are a conservative culture as is evidenced by the resurgance of religion.


Happy holidays,


JW

Is there a resurgance or are religious people just becoming more vocal? I've seen nothing that indicates that more people are joining or attending churches. I tend to believe that the liberals made religion become so out of vogue that many kept their mouths shut about it.

I admit that Clinton stole many aspects of the "Contract with America that Gingrich drew up. But he defeated a standing president, which is harder than defeating a V-P and trouched Bob Dole in 1996. As far as Gore, he distanced himself quite a bit from Clinton. Bush won by a good majority against Kerry, but hardly a landslide in popular vote. I don't believe that indicates a majority of people being conservative. Kerry was a terrible candidate. He was a liar, a shameless self promoter and had no core values. Bush should have beat him 2-1 if your hypothesis were true.

[retired]

My actual vote for the next President would be Ron Paul, the republican congressman from Texas. A great person!

[kirch]

Originally posted by Cop Writer
By the way, did you know Colin Powell's name was mispronounced so much during the first Gulf War that now that is the accepted pronounciation of his name? Reporters are so FN stupid! The man's name is Colin (CALL-IN) Powell not Colon like the organ!!! What JAs! You know, I always wondered about that. I've never heard that named pronounced 'Coe-lin' until he started making the news. Then it seemed that everyone said it that way, so I assumed that was the way he prefered it (though I don't understand why you'd prefer to have your name associated with rectal functions).

[ecpd170]

Bernard Kerik & Rudy Giuliani:D

[DHPDINTERN2005]

I would like to see someone run for president who cares about keeping jobs in the US and not always trying to give the rich tax cuts and destroying the middle class.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by DHPDINTERN2005
I would like to see someone run for president who cares about keeping jobs in the US and not always trying to give the rich tax cuts and destroying the middle class.


Mitt Romney.

[Cop Writer]

F it all....

I want Pete Rose and...and...Jenna Jamison!!!

:D

No offense to the ladies....

I'd take Dr. Phil and...and...Jenna Jamison as well....

[ecpd170]

Originally posted by Cop Writer
F it all....

I want Pete Rose and...and...Jenna Jamison!!!

:D

No offense to the ladies....

I'd take Dr. Phil and...and...Jenna Jamison as well....


You know now that you said something i take mine back and i am with cop writer bring in jenna :D

[infomastr]

so is every cop a conservative republican who doesnt care that Bush lied out his *** about iraq, has been seriously questioned in many independent(not done by the US Govt) inquiries into the govt involvment in 9/11, or the fact that he doesn't care about seperation of church and state, or the fact that he doesn't have a clue what he is doing so he pushes terrorism and fear into the american people's faces every two seconds to keep them scared and get their vote because everyone believed that if Kerry was elected there would be another attack. Now don't get me wrong, kerry sucked too. He was just a softy on every topic. I don't care who it is in 2008 I am voting libritarian like I always do even if it is wasting my vote. I live in a red state so what does it matter. Also what would you rather have, a president who lied about getting a blowjob or a president who has lied about wars and terrorism in order to further his agenda in the middle east. I may sound like a hardcore lefty but I am not. Have never voted dem in my life

[comcen]

Did some one suggest Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/) for President or did they say Entertainer & Drag Queen Ru Paul ? (http://www.rupaul.com/index.html)

[Bart]

Originally posted by Cop Writer
F it all....

I want Pete Rose and...and...Jenna Jamison!!!


hmmmm.... a gambler and a porn star...... i can handle that. :D its better than having condi rice, the token know-nothing black chick, in office. lol

[Bart]

Originally posted by infomastr
so is every cop a conservative republican.....

no

[Delta784]

Originally posted by infomastr
so is every cop a conservative republican

Pretty much everyone I work with is.

When you see first-hand, every night, the disastrous results of liberal social policy, it's impossible to drink the Democratic Kool-Aid.

[The Colonel(44)]

After all this Fema Feasco with Hurricanes! its a toss up Republicans Tn US Senator Bill Frist and Democract Former NewYork Mayor Rudy Guilliani I may swing over to Guilliani at least we know what to expect in case of a National Emergency God Forbid! :)

[k9dawgcop1985]

Al Bundy


i second that but i also would like myself to be president in 2008.

[Wisconsin Migra]

First of all, welcome back, Josey Wales.

As for Colin Powell, I have heard from State Dept. guys that he is a phoney baloney, FWIW.

As for my vote, it will be the same as I always vote, Colonel Bo Gritz. He is always on the ballot. He wants to eliminate public schooling all together and have everyone homeschooled. I think the results would be hilarious.

[Wisconsin Migra]

no

No, just the good ones.

[Matto]

Julieonie I know I butchered his name big time..

[Snack pack]

How about Newt Gingrich? If he runs in 2008 he will have my vote. If you have ever caught him on Fox News and herd what he has to say you would vote for him to.

[samnlexisdad]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio from the Maricopa County Sheriff in Arizona. lol. I would love to see Bin Laden or Sadam in pink panties running around the prison yard.

[MPD-A9]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio from the Maricopa County Sheriff in Arizona. lol. I would love to see Bin Laden or Sadam in pink panties running around the prison yard.

HA.

I like gov. Bredesen. More of a moderate democrat. What kinda of democrat would cut 100,000 people of of Tenn-Care, and give state employyees a pay raise. I am a republican, but he would have my vote.

[Mays]

John McCain.

[Kieth M.]

I had always wished that former Sen. BOB Kerry (Neb.) had run for president...Navy SEAL, Medal of Honor recipient, who lost a leg in Vietnam. Returned home, recovered, became a successful businessman, ran marathons and most importantly, boned actress Debra Winger! I have to admire all those things. :rolleyes:

[Seventy2002]

Let's elect someone who doesn't want the job and promise him - or her - time off for good behavior.

[SgtScott31]

What does it matter who's in office? They're just puppets on the political party strings anyway. Bush is doing what he is being told to do. He just let's his "case of dumbass" out more than other presidents.

If we elect anyone, all they need to do is just know how to look and sound smart. Bush has failed to do either.

[maminel]

How long will it take to get a black president????

[blackandgold978]

I'd love to see Rudy Giuliani in office for 2008. He displayed excellent leadership during 9/11, and he was greatly influential in cleaning up N.Y. City. I'm not too wild about John McCain; he's what I'd call a Rino. (Rebublican In Name Only.) Same goes for Colin Powell.

On the other hand, it'll be an ice-cold day in Hell before I ever vote for Billary Clinton. I saw the male half gut the U.S. military, (which he personally despised, being a draft-dodging coward.) and I was dissappointed to see him disgrace the Office of the President with his sex scandals. As for the female half, her attempt to cram her socialist health care plans were resoundingly rejected for good reasons. :mad: :(

I can't think of any Democrats who really appeal to me at all. Giuliani for Prez, I sez! :D ;)

[friedom77]

It's all about Johnny McCain

[BlueKnight116]

Sen. John McCain.

[The Colonel(44)]

HA.

I like gov. Bredesen. More of a moderate democrat. What kinda of democrat would cut 100,000 people of of Tenn-Care, and give state employyees a pay raise. I am a republican, but he would have my vote.Well he better enjoy his one term in office after cutting tenncare cause I know of 300,000 that want vote for him a 2nd term although he works for free,He gives the Governor salary back to Tn.Not bad for a multimillionare :rolleyes:

[pkagel]

Ron Paul would be awsome but I think it is going to be Sen Allen from VA who is pretty awsome in his own right. I lived in VA when he got elected and it was amazing how he improved that state.

Did some one suggest Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/) for President or did they say Entertainer & Drag Queen Ru Paul ? (http://www.rupaul.com/index.html)

[pkagel]

Depends, when is Condi Rice running. I'd vote for her in a second.

How long will it take to get a black president????

[SinePari]

Dems
Hillary is too polarizing. You think there are Bush-haters everywhere? Wait and see when she runs...chaos will erupt. She has no credentials, no resume, just a name.

Kerry's big ego will put his dumb-*** on the ticket again.

Leiberman is an excellent candidate for the Dems.

Joe Biden's name gets tossed around, but personally I think he's an arrogant, pompous, condescending ***** with bad hair plugs.

Reps
Mitt Romney needs some polishing on his public speaking. You can hear doubt in his voice. He's a great governor, but he not an electable president.

Frist can do better at his PR campaign.

McCain is electable, with a solid VP.

Every Congressman thinks he should be a Senator, every Senator thinks he should be president. Politics start at home, and I think everybody should be more involved with their local elections.

[The Colonel(44)]

Dems
Hillary is too polarizing. You think there are Bush-haters everywhere? Wait and see when she runs...chaos will erupt. She has no credentials, no resume, just a name.

Kerry's big ego will put his dumb-*** on the ticket again.

Leiberman is an excellent candidate for the Dems.

Joe Biden's name gets tossed around, but personally I think he's an arrogant, pompous, condescending ***** with bad hair plugs.

Reps
Mitt Romney needs some polishing on his public speaking. You can hear doubt in his voice. He's a great governor, but he not an electable president.

Frist can do better at his PR campaign.

McCain is electable, with a solid VP.

Every Congressman thinks he should be a Senator, every Senator thinks he should be president. Politics start at home, and I think everybody should be more involved with their local elections.Maybe we need another peanut Farmer from the South,Jimmy Carter could run one more time,at least he would withdraw us out of Iraq ;)

[nypdauxsgt]

My vote: PATRICK J. BUCHANAN. His sister BAY for Vice-President.

[NYPDjock]

Oprah Winfrey! :)

[elvisray0]

Elizabeth Dole; Strong conservative views. Very BIG Law Enforcement Supporter.

[_bluestreak_]

John McCain seems like a conservative moderate who swings to any side in revealing the truth about the important topics and supporting the good common people of America....for far too long, this country has had blind politicians pushing for items only in favor the party who nominates them. A shame.

[BigGoron]

I'm looking for Hillary in 2008. And how can you people say that Bill Clinton was one of our worst presidents? He is one of the best presidents we've ever had! Bush is a moron. Anyone ever hear of separation between church and state? How can we let this man talk about how God is speaking to him and telling him what to do? Is he the Pope now?

Has anyone ever listened to him speak? I've heard 4 year olds that can say bigger words without stuttering.

[BigGoron]

And another thing about Bill Clinton. George Bush has put us deep into a budget deficit. Does anyone remember that when Clinton left, the US did NOT HAVE a deficit?

Bush is a spoiled rich boy spending other people's money.

[_bluestreak_]

I'm looking for Hillary in 2008. And how can you people say that Bill Clinton was one of our worst presidents? He is one of the best presidents we've ever had! Bush is a moron. Anyone ever hear of separation between church and state? How can we let this man talk about how God is speaking to him and telling him what to do? Is he the Pope now?

Has anyone ever listened to him speak? I've heard 4 year olds that can say bigger words without stuttering.


Although I'm not fond of Bush, I can't remember a time where he referred to guidance from God in his decisions. Maybe guidance from his teddy bear or something of that nature...lol...

If you're going to make a claim, please make a legitimate one and stick to the part about him not being able to speak and making an *** out of himself in front of the world.

Clinton has accomplished very little in his 8 years as President. The only reason people like him so much is because he was able to bull**** on camera. That's it. Oh, and he signed the Brady Bill, which Congress put on his desk. Oh, and got head under the table that's been graced by the likes of Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan....you know, some of the greatest Presidents we've ever had. All while decreasing our nation's defense by lolly-gagging in the face of increasing threats. Check the books, my friend....Clinton may have APPEARED to be a great president; but in all actuality he wasn't that great of a President, much less a man.

By the way, if you can't tell already, I'm a moderate. I say to hell with all the political mess beyond electing people, it's just a hangup...let's get somebody in office that will finally be beneficial to this country.

I meant this all in a good tone- hope I haven't offended anyone.

[rpd1794]

George Allen, former Virginia Governor and current Senator. The man is not afraid to say what he thinks and, according to Michael Reagan, is the man most like his father regarding his political views.

Hillary Clinton???? :eek: .....wait...I have to stop...laughing..........

OK..I think I have my composure back...no....hang on......damn......

The devil will be building snowmen before she gets elected. And for all you know-it-all 20 something liberals...it takes alot more to be an effective leader than wetting your finger, sticking it up in the air, and seeing which way the wind is blowing before you go on camera to give a speech. I'd rather have an inarticulate person who is not afraid to make the right decision and stick with it, regardless of how unpopular it is portrayed to be.

[pkagel]

I really think he will be the candidate in 08. He has the look, the record and is very likable. I love how he stacked the parole boards right after he was elected Gov. and then pushed the CCW bill through. Like I said, it was amazing to see the difference in the state after he got elected.

George Allen, former Virginia Governor and current Senator. The man is not afraid to say what he thinks and, according to Michael Reagan, is the man most like his father regarding his political views.

[grampa carl]

Concur with Sheriff Joe in AZ, Libby Dole or Newt. Not sure about Frist or Guiliani (sp?) yet.
I'm looking for someone who will uphold our individual rights.
Scalia?
Ollie?
Rush?
Charlton? Even with Alzheimers
BODIE? :eek:

[farvas#1]

Its gotta be the one the only real american that would fight for the rights of every man .


The IMMORTAL HULK HOGAN.........
Cause whatcha gonna do when the 24" pyhtons run wild on you.. BROTHER

[mark7777]

I would want none of the current names that every one thinks of. that means no McCain and no Hillary.

I would hope some better candidates come forward but definitely never never do I want Jed bush or any member of bush family in the running.

[usafcop64528]

I'd leave the country if Clinton was elected...

[mac83]

Dems
Hillary is too polarizing. You think there are Bush-haters everywhere? Wait and see when she runs...chaos will erupt. She has no credentials, no resume, just a name.

Kerry's big ego will put his dumb-*** on the ticket again.

Leiberman is an excellent candidate for the Dems.

Joe Biden's name gets tossed around, but personally I think he's an arrogant, pompous, condescending ***** with bad hair plugs.

Reps
Mitt Romney needs some polishing on his public speaking. You can hear doubt in his voice. He's a great governor, but he not an electable president.

Frist can do better at his PR campaign.

McCain is electable, with a solid VP.

Every Congressman thinks he should be a Senator, every Senator thinks he should be president. Politics start at home, and I think everybody should be more involved with their local elections.

I don't see McCain being able to win the primary. He would have trouble carrying the conservative base IMO. The Republicans have a solid stable of candidates IMO. I don't foresee Powell running and Guliani would never carry the conservative base either because he has liberal views on numerous social issues (ie. abortion). Condi Rice, I feel, would do very well. I don't know that she's planning on running though. Frist is a decent candidate, as well. I wouldn't shocked to see Jeb Bush give it a run either. It will be interesting to see how things pan out when people begin to announce their candidacy and layout their platforms.

Hillary will most likely win the democratic nomination. Her base loves her and she has been trying to portray herself as more of a moderate since the last election in hopes of gaining some of the swing vote. Her downfall will be that many people who would not otherwise vote republican may do so just to vote against her. Lieberman is a pretty moderate democrat and I feel he would be a good candidate for them. However, I see Hillary taking the primary; make no mistakes about it...she's going to run. Biden is terrible, he's said way too many stupid things before to the media. To be honest, the Dems would be better off trying to find a governor to be a candidate. Congressman always have trouble winning. A voting record is really a bitch to carry with you into a presidential election.

Anyone ever hear of separation between church and state?

You mean the phrase that is not contained in the Constitution? The consititution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise there of". This was put in the Constitution to prevent the establishment of a national religion like that of the one they had left back in England. The phrase you speak of is not in the constitution. Rather it came from a 1947 supreme court opinion written by Justice Hugo Black, who had been a member of the KKK in the 1920s and was known to be very anti-catholic. Is not the president free to exercise his religious beliefs?

Further, the people saying Bush lied...how cliche..
Bottom line is that Bush got poor intelligence, just like the rest of us. Heads should roll for that, but I really can't blame him for relying on his intelligence. Numerous democrats that are now shouting that Bush lied, once agreed that we had good reason to go in to Iraq when they reviewed the same intelligence. John Kerry was one of them.

[BufordTJustice]

Clinton can run again in 2008. The term limit is based on consecutive terms. Meaning he only has to sit out four years and can run and be elected again.

Even if he could.......Hillary would never allow this....Bill has to many memories in the oral office or is it oval office..... :D

[Inkel]

The Dems will probably field Hillary as their canidate which is unfortunate because I don't think she really has a chance at all. I'd really like to see them run a Warner/Obama ticket because I think they not only have a better chance but they'd be much better for the country if they some how managed to win.

I really really really hope Hillary doesn't win because then you're going to have all the idiots up in arms about it and threatening to move to Canada again, just like they did when Bush got re-elected. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Bush but I'm not going to move out of the country because of it. :rolleyes:

I think McCain is pretty much a shoe-in for the Rep. He likes to challange the administration on certain issues but he's still a conservative and I think he can hold their base, especially with his strong pro-life stance which is about all you need there.

[The Colonel(44)]

I'd leave the country if Clinton was elected...You may not have to Move,The Democrats will most likely sell Alaska to China to pay off the national Debt or be as lame as Carter was in the 1970's and gave away the Panama Canal! :confused: You may want to educate yourself in the langauge of Chinese :eek:

[marshaldan]

Me. Just let me be CINC. I WILL HIRE THE REST.

[concon02]

If Hillary is elected. I move away from this country.

[Labrock]

Condi Rice with Liz Dole or Jean Kirpatrick (still alive?) as the running mate.

Unfortunately, they would have to get past the primaries which would be hard.

But, it would drive the dems crazy and draw a lot of crossover votes.

Plus, with Rice at the helm, I think we could still be strong but she would be able to soften up some of our critics.

[SgtScott31]

You may not have to Move,The Democrats will most likely sell Alaska to China to pay off the national Debt or be as lame as Carter was in the 1970's and gave away the Panama Canal! :confused: You may want to educate yourself in the langauge of Chinese :eek:

Haven't been a supporter of either party candidates for the last two elections, but I can say that the debt wasn't near as bad before ole "W" took office.

[usafcop64528]

You may not have to Move,The Democrats will most likely sell Alaska to China to pay off the national Debt or be as lame as Carter was in the 1970's and gave away the Panama Canal! :confused: You may want to educate yourself in the langauge of Chinese :eek:
lol. too bad I couldn't buy it from them, I would... :D

[Deputy_Dave]

so is every cop a conservative republican who doesnt care that Bush lied out his *** about iraq, has been seriously questioned in many independent(not done by the US Govt) inquiries into the govt involvment in 9/11, or the fact that he doesn't care about seperation of church and state, or the fact that he doesn't have a clue what he is doing so he pushes terrorism and fear into the american people's faces every two seconds to keep them scared and get their vote because everyone believed that if Kerry was elected there would be another attack. Now don't get me wrong, kerry sucked too. He was just a softy on every topic. I don't care who it is in 2008 I am voting libritarian like I always do even if it is wasting my vote. I live in a red state so what does it matter. Also what would you rather have, a president who lied about getting a blowjob or a president who has lied about wars and terrorism in order to further his agenda in the middle east. I may sound like a hardcore lefty but I am not. Have never voted dem in my life

Ok, forgive me but.....you need to grow up and get a grip on history. Go back and research what you referred to in your post...... First you need to read the Constitution and what the real meaning behind the church and state issue.

As far as the intel that Our President got about Iraq..... How do you explain that at least 5 other countries had similar info from their own intel sources that were independent from the US. Add to that the fact that Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and many other Dems voted to go to war based on the same info that the President had.

It just kills me what the Liberal Media and the Left wing of this country have done to distort the truth and also how the have a duck and weave stratagem to their politics. They say what they think the public wants so they can get elected. Look at BILLERY, man talk about a floating on the breeze.....

As far as cops being center or right!!!! Yes most of us are. I would think it is almost a pre requisite for the job. Imagine if the cops were all left of center....We would be like England and most of our cops would not be armed.........A police force of liberal

[Deputy_Dave]

OHHHHH by the way. I think I want Bill O'Riley in the white house. The man calls it as it is. He believes that law enforcement is restricted in many ways and has good ideas on some laws and how they actually should be......

Bill O'Riley Pres.
Shaun Hannity VP.
G. Gordon Liddy Chief of Staff

[SinePari]

Haven't been a supporter of either party candidates for the last two elections, but I can say that the debt wasn't near as bad before ole "W" took office.

Tell us how YOUR personal financial situation has changed, whether the country is in debt or not.

Are you saying you were much better off when Clinton was in office, or is your dislike for Bush is blinding you? When the deficit was lower during the last administration, did you pay more or less taxes? Did your portfolio go up or down? Did your mortgage miraculously go up or down?

Me personally, I have gotten a much bigger house, made a killing when I sold my condo, and have made leaps and bounds in personal income over the last few years. The country's debt and who's in office doesn't affect individual finances.

[Inkel]

OHHHHH by the way. I think I want Bill O'Riley in the white house. The man calls it as it is. He believes that law enforcement is restricted in many ways and has good ideas on some laws and how they actually should be......

Bill O'Riley Pres.
Shaun Hannity VP.
G. Gordon Liddy Chief of Staff

Yeah because then when Liberals complain about the president making up information then they'd actually be right. It's a shame that people listen to him and Liddy. Even Fox's own correspondants state on air that they blow everything out of proportion to make themselves into targets (ie: The "War" on Christmas). Fox News: "We Decide, You Listen."

[AKFireCop]

McCain, hands down...

[SgtScott31]

Tell us how YOUR personal financial situation has changed, whether the country is in debt or not.

Are you saying you were much better off when Clinton was in office, or is your dislike for Bush is blinding you? When the deficit was lower during the last administration, did you pay more or less taxes? Did your portfolio go up or down? Did your mortgage miraculously go up or down?

Me personally, I have gotten a much bigger house, made a killing when I sold my condo, and have made leaps and bounds in personal income over the last few years. The country's debt and who's in office doesn't affect individual finances.

It was acutally Clinton that asked for higher salaries for public safety personnel (police/fire/EMS). So was your much bigger house and high income due to Bush? Do you honestly think that the country's economy has no effect on a person's living?

I have never cared too much for who's been in office because it goes far beyond ONE person, but I AM tired of people playing Bush out to be some kind of American hero. He doesn't know his *** from a hole in the ground. Do you think he honestly writes the speeches he reads? If we're going to elect someone that is going to be our national leader, it at least needs to be someone that even sounds like they have some sense.

[MPD-A9]

I do not know how clinton helped. He really screwwed my town when he signed NAFTA. Almost all of the furniture factories have moved to mexico. Why? NAFTA. Thanks to clinton, they can now pay 2.00 an houre instead of what they would have to pay up here with benifits. He really screwwed a lot of people out of jobs here. fortounatly, are city was able to get some other factories to open up here, but the furniture indistry that was in our city barely exist.

[SinePari]

Do you honestly think that the country's economy has no effect on a person's living?

Yes. When your boy said he was going to put 100,000 more cops on the streets, what happened when that federal money dried up? Many depts here in the Commonwealth who couldn't match that money, actually have FEWER police on their roster since receiving those grants. A mismanagement of funds at the local level.

Federal politics have little impact on people's lives. Local government takes, and redistributes your hard-earned taxes how they see fit. Look at your local taxes not at the federal level:

State Income
County
City/Town
Property
Sales
Health
Car

These taxes are driven by the state or lower forms of gov't, which you or I can affect by contacted your local elected officials. Try contacting the President or a Senator when you have a gripe :rolleyes:

[bldg0031]

I do not know how clinton helped. He really screwwed my town when he signed NAFTA. Almost all of the furniture factories have moved to mexico. Why? NAFTA. Thanks to clinton, they can now pay 2.00 an houre instead of what they would have to pay up here with benifits. He really screwwed a lot of people out of jobs here. fortounatly, are city was able to get some other factories to open up here, but the furniture indistry that was in our city barely exist.


It seems to me that this view is very short sighted. You need to think long term when talking about bills like NAFTA. Yes, you are right in saying short term this causes a big loss of jobs. But long term it is the only option! We can not isolate ourselves and think we are better that way. Losing jobs like the ones you mentioned is a price we have to pay in order to get better hirer paying jobs in the future.

As for all this Clinton is a crook thing. He is not. He should never have been put on the stand. With that said he did lie which is wrong but it was none of our business to know in the first place. I am a republican and this was just dirty politics. Look at the kind of job Fitzgerald has done in his investigation as opposed to what Star did. Millions of dollars were spent with star and Fitzgerald actually got facts and spent so much less money. If you want to know what was criminal it is sending us to war on a lie. Do I know if it was a LIE, no not for sure. But we should have some evidence next time we decide to take over a country. Notice I also believe the war is a positive thing but the oval shouldn't have made up stories to get us there!

[bldg0031]

And my answer to the first question.

John McCain (who most republicans do not want and wont allow due to his ability to make his own decisions and not be a puppet!)

Barak Obama (great man, great leader, earned everything he has!)

Frist better not win that would be horrible for the country ... almost as bad as this past president.

John Edwards would be fairly good and will run again.

Kerry needs to stay away!

[bldg0031]

"Hillary is too polarizing. You think there are Bush-haters everywhere? Wait and see when she runs...chaos will erupt. She has no credentials, no resume, just a name."

What credentials did Bush have? He was a Gov she is in politics now too.

He bankrupted a few businesses. Ran a bad baseball team.

Im not saying Bush shouldn't have won. I didn't like Kerry or Gore either (despite really not liking bush). I am just saying you dont need a lot of credentials. You can create an image if you are good. With that said I do not think Clinton gets the nod. I really hope she doesn't though.

How can anyone actually think Rice is a good choice. Did you not see her interviews? Did you not see how foolish she looked? How confused and baffled she got at times? She is a bright person yes but doesn't handle pressure at all.

[CityLt]

Senator George Allen
Condi Rice for VP

[pkagel]

Perfect combo right there!!

Senator George Allen
Condi Rice for VP

[sbct]

Hilary should never be president of this country. If i had to vote today it would definitly go for mccain. I will vote in the Dem. primary against hilary no matter who is running against her just to try and do my part to save this country from such a horrific mistake.

[bldg0031]

Have you guys watched Rice in any situation where there is no script? She is a panic attack waiting to happen!

[Laboo]

Sponge Bob.... he is so cute in those square pants :)

Though I don't believe it will happen anytime soon, Condi Rice. If Kerry were to run again I will vote for the other party....

[pkagel]

Yes I have watched her and she is the most well spoken and level headed person I have seen in that level of gov't. Your personal bias is showing and blinding you.

Have you guys watched Rice in any situation where there is no script? She is a panic attack waiting to happen!

[bldg0031]

Why is that fans of the bush administration can't take criticism without saying it is personal Bias?

I am not a democrat nor do I vote democrat. I wanted and believe McCain should have won that first election.

With that said watching Rice speak in the hearings she was flustered and nervous most of the time. She doesn't handle pressure well.

How am I blind? If that is your argument as to why I am wrong you are falling in the 10 percent of people that just want to bash the other person. I find it unfortunate that on both sides of the isle you hear the people with the least to say the most. Saying you are wrong due to who you are is a terrible argument. Saying I am wrong due to personal Bias is a terrible argument. Even the people with the lobsided of views on math still aren't wrong when they say 2 + 2 is four. Nor does it make someone wrong that they say there is a god just because they are heavily Christian. So if you think I am wrong please tell me how.

I am saying from watching her in the different hearings she was not calm and collected. Nor did she seem sure on the facts. Frankly she just doesn't inspire trust nor confidence in me nor most of the public. Something the pres needs to have.

[pkagel]

Who called you a Dem and who said I was a Bush supporter :confused: . I am a Rice supporter and have seen her talk many times including the hearings and she was and is very well spoken. She may inspre no confidence in you but who are you to say that MOST people are not inspried by her. Seems most all people I have talked to are quite impressed by her whether they agree with her 100% or not. I for one don't agree with 100% of what she says.

Edit: Damn, I always check the profiles after I write, you are just a kid. You don't even know anything about Condi Rice do you. Don't do your little Google serch and pretend you know about her now.


Why is that fans of the bush administration can't take criticism without saying it is personal Bias?

I am not a democrat nor do I vote democrat. I wanted and believe McCain should have won that first election.

With that said watching Rice speak in the hearings she was flustered and nervous most of the time. She doesn't handle pressure well.

How am I blind? If that is your argument as to why I am wrong you are falling in the 10 percent of people that just want to bash the other person. I find it unfortunate that on both sides of the isle you hear the people with the least to say the most. Saying you are wrong due to who you are is a terrible argument. Saying I am wrong due to personal Bias is a terrible argument. Even the people with the lobsided of views on math still aren't wrong when they say 2 + 2 is four. Nor does it make someone wrong that they say there is a god just because they are heavily Christian. So if you think I am wrong please tell me how.

I am saying from watching her in the different hearings she was not calm and collected. Nor did she seem sure on the facts. Frankly she just doesn't inspire trust nor confidence in me nor most of the public. Something the pres needs to have.

[bldg0031]

Edit: Damn, I always check the profiles after I write, you are just a kid. You don't even know anything about Condi Rice do you. Don't do your little Google serch and pretend you know about her now.


This is exactly what I am talking about. This time you at least started with some points. But you ended up attacking me not my argument. Try to stick with the facts not where they are coming from. In case you are interested I have a poly sci minor and have been following politics my whole life. I have watched all the hearings and have seen her speak many times. So I might be young and I do not claim to know nearly enough about her other then the way she has talked and presented herself but I have a good enough backround to share a thought. Also my question to you is this .... You might be older then me but how much longer have you known/watched/seen Condi Rice? I am guessing it is not much longer.

The reason I assumed you thought I was democrat was due to the "blind" comment you made. Thinking that I was just saying for premade reasons. I am not.... I wish she was a better speaker and a better leader. The fact is I do not think she is.

We have different opinions here and that is why this country is great. It allows us to do that. We will both be made smarter by listening to each other rather then trying to attack one another.

I just dont believe she can handle pressure situations from watching her. That is my opinion.

BTW ... maybe the reason most people you talk to think Condi is a strong inspiring person is they all think along your lines. I am actually very lucky with where I am and where I am from. I am in Kansas a very heavily conservative area and grew up and still am around chicago a democratic area a lot. Therefor I am lucky to have the ability to see both sides usually by talking to friends and family members. Most people do not think she is qualified (whether right or not) for the current job much less president. Her approval numbers are not very good but that has more to do with Bush's numbers then her own.

Do you think the former FEMA president was qualified?

[pkagel]

Have you even read her resume? Do you know what she has done in this country? If she isn't qualified then by God, who is?

I'd like to know why you think she buckles under pressure, because she talks over your head while telling the Congress where to go. She talks better than anyone I have ever seen before Congress and I've been watching Congressional hearings since Reagan was in office.

Don't blame your thinking on where you live. You think that way because you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed. Right, left, they all do it. Think for yourself and actually listen to the lady when she talks. She works circles around the idiots in Congress. They are the ones that can't handle it because she refuses to play their stupid games.

Most people do not think she is qualified (whether right or not) for the current job much less president. .

[bldg0031]

Yes, I basically know her resume' and what she has done. She is a smart women and has a lot of things going for her. If that is the best you have seen someone talk in front of congress I do not understand your rating scale.

I am not brainwashed nor do I listen to anyone. I do not blame where I am or where I am from for my thoughts. I credit it for my open mindedness. Something which you should think about.

If you just want to say the same things over and over again by all means continue. If you want to keep up the cheapshots at me trying to go for a laugh go ahead. But I will not be a part of it as it is a waste of time. If you want to enlighten me to things I might not know about Rice please do! But the way she talks is something we disagree on.

I have joined your yahoo group and have respected all of your posts that I can remember. I am actually trying to learn from you so I am not sure where the disrespect towards me is coming from. I do not mean to insult you all I ask is that instead of trying to attack me you just stick to the facts.

Have you even read her resume? Do you know what she has done in this country? If she isn't qualified then by God, who is?

I'd like to know why you think she buckles under pressure, because she talks over your head while telling the Congress where to go. She talks better than anyone I have ever seen before Congress and I've been watching Congressional hearings since Reagan was in office.

Don't blame your thinking on where you live. You think that way because you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed. Right, left, they all do it. Think for yourself and actually listen to the lady when she talks. She works circles around the idiots in Congress. They are the ones that can't handle it because she refuses to play their stupid games.

[LawEnfWB]

I

[SgtScott31]

[QUOTE=LawEnfWB]I

[Kyia]

I would like to see someone run for president who cares about keeping jobs in the US and not always trying to give the rich tax cuts and destroying the middle class.

I agree 100%!!!!

[bldg0031]

Keeping job in the U.S.A is a great thought but we will have to make some sacrifices for long term security in the world market. NAFTA is one of them.

Give away the lessor paying jobs now to have better hiring paying jobs later.

One way or another we will be in a Trade agreement.

[LawEnfWB]

I definitely don't think it's a "winnable" war. I have many friends serving over there and they feel that the minute we leave civil war will occur between Shiites, Sunnis, etc.

I don

[bldg0031]

I agree with that 100%. Dean should keep his mouth shut unless he is saying something to help. Is national political career is dead so he should be trying to further things that help. Saying anything about pulling out or failure is not a way to help. Right now we just need to support our troups to the best we can. Dean goes for shock value and we really have no idea what he believes as he will say what will cause the most shock. Not unlike Rush or Hannity. Just unfortunately Dean still has actual political connections.

With that said all the knocks on the democratic party are true. But we should realize this happens when you get beat 8 years in a row. The Republican party had a big turnaround after year 5 of The Clinton Era. SO this is good. Democratic party will hopefully find some quality leaders and get good debates going again rather then just bashing the other guy!

[pkagel]

Who do you see talking better in front of congress who was being thrown those kind of punches?

Again, who has more qualifications to do her job?

Yes, I basically know her resume' and what she has done. She is a smart women and has a lot of things going for her. If that is the best you have seen someone talk in front of congress I do not understand your rating scale.

[bldg0031]

John McCain has much better qualifications and so Does Barak Obama. While I do not want Hilary I think even she has better qualifications. All of these people have been and faced much tougher situations and came out on top. They all are smart but all of these are much better natural leaders and speakers. I do not agree with Hilary's view so I would not want here any where near it.

Bill Clinton ran circles around any of his interviewers (especially when he wasn't telling lies). He was a great public speaker and an amazing leader.

Bud Selig even did a better job talking in front of congress as well as Palmerio and the rest of the baseball players.

I think we need to move on from the way she talks. This is something we will disagree on and will not convince each other different.

[pkagel]

Fair enough, we disagree on the way she talks. McCain, while I honor his service to the USA and to my Navy, I disagree with on more points than I agree with. He is even worse than Bush is on the border. He talks well, I'll give him that but I believe he has gone plumb nuts.

As far as NAFTA is concerned, let's have some equality here. They have dirt wages and we essentially subsidize their country. NAFTA would work fine between the spanish speaking countries to our south and works fine between us and Canada but fails miserably between the English and Spanish speaking countries. Until Mexico is willing to come into the 20th century their is not a lot we can do for them.

[bldg0031]

You can't have the same wages as we do here. Cost of living in some of those places is dirt cheap. Yes, I see problems and I agree that you have to start out with big time restrictions but you aren't hitting the real problem on the head. Things like China and Japan putting a 300% tax on american made products is the biggest issues. We have to enforce the fact that it says in the agreement they can't do that. The other problem is having the yen being controlled against the dollar which is not fair and causes many problems.

As for you disagreeing with McCain what are your major issues? I understand his continued attention towards the sports world bothers me.

Do you know anything about Obama (I know he is a democrat and that might bother you).

[pkagel]

Nope, can't have the same wages, but they don't even have the same working conditions.

China is a different issue all together.

Obama voted against the two recent free trade bills?? Seems to go against your thinking.

He is very anti-gun which to me means he is anti self protection and dangerous.

He votes to raise taxes, not a good thing.

He likes income redistribution, also not a good thing.

He refuses to answer questions about immigration, but I think we can guess what he'll vote.

I don't care what party they say they are from, read their record and then decide. Their have been quite a few dems I'd vote for, this guy isn't one of them.

FWIW, I'm a libertarian at heart so most of the guys in congress pee me off.

You can't have the same wages as we do here. Cost of living in some of those places is dirt cheap. Yes, I see problems and I agree that you have to start out with big time restrictions but you aren't hitting the real problem on the head. Things like China and Japan putting a 300% tax on american made products is the biggest issues. We have to enforce the fact that it says in the agreement they can't do that. The other problem is having the yen being controlled against the dollar which is not fair and causes many problems.

As for you disagreeing with McCain what are your major issues? I understand his continued attention towards the sports world bothers me.

Do you know anything about Obama (I know he is a democrat and that might bother you).

[bldg0031]

That is interested thought on Obama. I have read his book and some of the things he says I agree with and some I do not. But I do not think there is a politician I agree 100 percent with.

Be carefull with what people vote for when those votes come out. The issue there is when so much is added to a bill that it becomes a bad bill from a good bill.

As far as the anti gun issue I will say I do not know his beliefs on that. I am actually for a fair amount of Gun Control (nothing like san fran). I do not believe the second amendment protects our right to have any kind of gun and there is really no purpose for some of the guns out there to be in civilians hands.

I got to say I think more highly of him just due to how he has lived his life then I like his political views. It is the whole would you rather have a great man or a great president. Clinton vs Carter. Id rather have Clinton who is an awful man but a Great Pres while Carter was the opposite.

I still think John McCain is the man for me though. Although Really I would just like to see two quality people that want to debate the actual problems not tear each other down.

[pkagel]

You may not like most people having guns but that does not invalidate the 2nd amendment any more than me not liking the KKK and what they stand for invalidates the 1st. Indidvidual rights are just that, idividual.

McCain very well may fit your ideas best but I'd think you'd want to look at his entire record and not just the fact that he is a bonefide war hero. He has a few issues I agree with but overall, he is too liberal for me and the fact is, if it weren't for his war record he would be too liberal for his constituents.

As far as the bills go, I'd like to see one issue, one bill and make these congressmen read the whole bill and take a test on it before voting. I don't think a one of them has half a clue what they are voting on when they vote but just vote what their special interests tell them to.

I for one will not vote for somebody who gets a good rating from the trial lawyers or from the gun grabbers.

[FearTheCats]

sorry bad post

[bldg0031]

I will say this and we can move right on. I do not believe the idea (nor the wording) of the second ammendment gives everyone the right to have any guns they want. I also believe the constitution was meant to be flexed to the current times.

As for McCain I like what he stands for right now. I love the idea he is going to stand up for what he believes in not kiss *** to the far right like bush has done. I respect him for that.

I love that bill idea. Unfortunately that will never happen as it would hurt the people that vote on them. This makes it impossible really to look at someones record and effectively judge them in a short period of time.

Finally your knock on trial lawyers is really unfounded. I believe you are talking about tort reform here and there is really a good argument to both sides.

I also wanted to comment on a separation of church and state comment. The first time it was mentioned was by Thomas Jefferson in a letter while the constitution was being written. In fact most of our founding fathers did not believe in organized religion and that is why the first amendment was made. It was made so no one religion should be able to make laws nor should the church have anything to do with the government. It was written the way it was for a simple reason. It was a great way to put it where even church goers could agree with. I am a good Christian but I do not believe my beliefs should govern anyone. If I made a law based on it (or bush did) it would violate the first and biggest right we have.

Ok... ONE MORE. To the person wanting to ban partial birth abortion. You do not understand the issue. 93% (I know it was in the 90s but not sure on actual number) of partial birth abortions are to save the mothers life. This should be an option. Whether we like it or not it needs to be there. Most Doctors have said the issue has never come up! To ban it completely is ignorant and very short sighted.

You may not like most people having guns but that does not invalidate the 2nd amendment any more than me not liking the KKK and what they stand for invalidates the 1st. Indidvidual rights are just that, idividual.

McCain very well may fit your ideas best but I'd think you'd want to look at his entire record and not just the fact that he is a bonefide war hero. He has a few issues I agree with but overall, he is too liberal for me and the fact is, if it weren't for his war record he would be too liberal for his constituents.

As far as the bills go, I'd like to see one issue, one bill and make these congressmen read the whole bill and take a test on it before voting. I don't think a one of them has half a clue what they are voting on when they vote but just vote what their special interests tell them to.

I for one will not vote for somebody who gets a good rating from the trial lawyers or from the gun grabbers.

[webjeep]

Anyone ever hear of separation between church and state?


Um, actually last time I checked I believe that the wording is something along lines of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So I guess what you are saying is that we need an agnostic or atheist for president?

Not that I am a fan of organized religion, but all of this PC ***** about saying God/god/Allah/Jaweh/Budha being offensive to people is a crock. Note the second half of the first line of the FIRST AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... "prohibiting the free excersize thereof."

Again, I think that the religious right has gone way too far, I think that it's absurd that they are so judgemental especially when their "values" are all rooted the same as those of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Tao, and every other major religion of the world.

If you are offended by the word GOD on your money or in the Pledge of Allegiance then you are an idiot. It is there for historical purposes not to offend you or to promote religion. F'in morons.

OK, rant done...


I'll come back later for my presidential choices... :D

-web

[pkagel]

Let's see where he stands and see if you agree.

He supports an increase in the number of visas issued for agricultural workers.

He supports relaxing restrictions barring legal immigrants from using social programs (e.g. public housing, food stamps).

He voted against S Amdt 2634 to S 2020: To provide an additional $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to be used for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder.

Do your really support him or do you want to actually look at his record and what he stands for. I will agree that I like some of the things he stands for, but he is even more liberal than Bush.




As for McCain I like what he stands for right now. I love the idea he is going to stand up for what he believes in not kiss *** to the far right like bush has done. I respect him for that.

[Isla_]

George Allen, former Virginia Governor and current Senator. The man is not afraid to say what he thinks and, according to Michael Reagan, is the man most like his father regarding his political views.

Hillary Clinton???? :eek: .....wait...I have to stop...laughing..........

OK..I think I have my composure back...no....hang on......damn......

The devil will be building snowmen before she gets elected. And for all you know-it-all 20 something liberals...it takes alot more to be an effective leader than wetting your finger, sticking it up in the air, and seeing which way the wind is blowing before you go on camera to give a speech. I'd rather have an inarticulate person who is not afraid to make the right decision and stick with it, regardless of how unpopular it is portrayed to be.



one of the best post's I have seen in a while!!! cracked me up :D

[bldg0031]

I like the more liberal then bush stance. I am more moderate then McCain even. Most people are more liberal then Bush and being liberal doesn't make you bad. Our next president will be more liberal then BUSH.

I do not like everything McCain stands for. Yes, I like the idea of more visas (controlling them coming in is better then them sneaking in).

I think helping people is a good thing and I would like to see his plan for these restrictions towards social programs

I will not comment on how McCain voted on a bill. There is no way to know what was all in the bill without going and looking at the entire bill! While yes it sounds nice to say 500,000,000 to help people with mental disorders. But the problem is a lot of bills dictate how it can be used and where it comes from. So all of that is a part of where you vote on the bill.

I would rather have McCain with all of these issues then someone like bush whose people had a calling list in South Carolina saying the child McCain adopted was actually his from when he was fighting in wars. Spreading rumors with no factual basis ****es the crap out of me and I think those people should be punished!

So yes I do agree with McCain on most things. Is there something you could find that I wont agree with. I would say 100 percent so. But there have been few things I agree with Bush on. No I do not think his tax breaks where a good thing (we needed them in different places). I currently run my own business and I didn't get any of the tax breaks despite him saying they were aimed at people like me. No I do not think we have a very good plan in Iraq (I do think the war is a good thing though). No I do not like the idea of his Supreme court justices and No I do not want to ban abortion. No I do not like him pulling more money out of stem cell research and NO I do not like him taking more funds away from womens rights then any other president in history. No I do not like how crappy of a job Homeland Securities has done and how poorly it is being run. No I do not like the fact we had a former horse guy as president of FEMA so he could help his buddies out. With that said he is my President and I will stand by him. Just would never vote for him or anyone like him.

[bldg0031]

"The devil will be building snowmen before she gets elected. And for all you know-it-all 20 something liberals...it takes alot more to be an effective leader than wetting your finger, sticking it up in the air, and seeing which way the wind is blowing before you go on camera to give a speech. I'd rather have an inarticulate person who is not afraid to make the right decision and stick with it, regardless of how unpopular it is portrayed to be."

How about we get someone that is not only willing to stand up for what they believe in to be right but can speak clearly about it and lead other people there as well. In this country I think we can find both.

[pkagel]

How is it that he is so conservative. He opens the borders and bleeds money into pork projects worse than Sen. Byrd. He's no conservative. Check his record. He just happens to be hated by people even more liberal than he is.

Most people are more liberal then Bush .

[bldg0031]

You find a few issues that he is liberal on and call him a liberal. Even the far right wing in office makes concessions at times.

He is a strict conservative.

[mac83]

I also wanted to comment on a separation of church and state comment. The first time it was mentioned was by Thomas Jefferson in a letter while the constitution was being written. In fact most of our founding fathers did not believe in organized religion and that is why the first amendment was made. It was made so no one religion should be able to make laws nor should the church have anything to do with the government. It was written the way it was for a simple reason. It was a great way to put it where even church goers could agree with. I am a good Christian but I do not believe my beliefs should govern anyone. If I made a law based on it (or bush did) it would violate the first and biggest right we have.

The letter you speak of was the letter to the Danburry Baptists. And you are wrong about when it was written. Rehnquist addressed this in his dissent of Wallace v. Jaffree.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistake understanding of constitutional history, expressly frighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. (the metaphor he refers to is that of the "wall of separation" ) Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were pressed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written fourteen years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seems to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Rehnquist also has written further...
The Establishment Clause did not require government and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson v...
...The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

never forget to the two Clauses that were explicitly written in the actual constitution...not some letter.

Congress shall 1. make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 2. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

*EDIT I just reread what you said it sounds like you have the concept. I just don't see how some can argue that bush is doing things that violate that clause.

[halfacop]

My vote is for.................... CHUCK NORRIS! :cool:

[bldg0031]

I do not think Bush has violated the clause. I never said that. I said that if he makes a law based on any religion it would violate the clause.

Jefferson is the one that wrote this

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE "

I do agree there is nothing that says you can not aide a religion. But it does clearly say we can not govern according to any religion. That a religious argument for a law to be passed falls on deaf ears in this country!

[bldg0031]

Just to clear something up. He did say that in 1802 in a letter to danbury congregation. It was explaining that there is a separation already there and you need not worry about us trying to govern on the basis of religion. Remember Jefferson is one of our leading founding fathers.

If you look at the founding fathers not only did they not base any of the laws on anything in organized religion; many thought that organized religion would be the downfall if we let it run our country.

[mac83]

I do agree there is nothing that says you can not aide a religion. But it does clearly say we can not govern according to any religion. That a religious argument for a law to be passed falls on deaf ears in this country!

ah, yes i agree. i think people just take it too far when they have a beef with the pledge of allegience or with a christmas tree or a menorah being put up in a town hall. basically when people think that just because someone is part of the government they can not be religious.

[bldg0031]

I whole heartidly agree. People take it waaay to far!

With that said I found it interesting the dates on when under god and in god we trust were added to the pledge and to our currency. It was far from when they started both! I do not really care what god they are talking about in either but we can use all the help we can get from whatever god you want it to be!

I do agree with the sentiment to take it out of schools though. I do not believe in school prayer and do not like anyone being forced into it or even voluntary prayer at school. It is just another way to separate our children. So I can understand that. But if you are not being forced to do something (like commandments on the wall or it being called a Christmas tree) I just don't see the issue.

[luv2Bblu]

Rudy Guiliani!!!!!!!

[mac83]

I whole heartidly agree. People take it waaay to far!

With that said I found it interesting the dates on when under god and in god we trust were added to the pledge and to our currency. It was far from when they started both! I do not really care what god they are talking about in either but we can use all the help we can get from whatever god you want it to be!

I do agree with the sentiment to take it out of schools though. I do not believe in school prayer and do not like anyone being forced into it or even voluntary prayer at school. It is just another way to separate our children. So I can understand that. But if you are not being forced to do something (like commandments on the wall or it being called a Christmas tree) I just don't see the issue.

well i don't believe in school prayer in public schools, but there was some guy arguing about kids studying the declaration of independance because of it's references to god..simply ridiculous IMO.

[bldg0031]

That is just stupid. Never even heard of that. I guess though it is their right to argue this. Just hope nobody listens.

[noobs]

Mitt Romney

[BigPat]

ah, yes i agree. i think people just take it too far when they have a beef with the pledge of allegience or with a christmas tree or a menorah being put up in a town hall. basically when people think that just because someone is part of the government they can not be religious.

I agree with you on that aspect, but Bush has made some questionable comments/decisions regarding the seperation of church and state. He has made quite an effort to put governmaent money into "faith based" organizations. He also has given the religious right far too muich influence with the FCC. He even made a comment that "the jury is still out on Evolution" and that it shouldn't be taught in schools. While I wouldn't go as far as to say he is violating the constitution, Bush does seem to do a lot of pandering to the religious right.

[BigPat]

Right now I have no idea who I would want to see as Preseident in 08. I am not a big fan of Giuliani, although I do like John Mcain somewhat. I wouldn not vote for Hilary Clinton (although her husband was an effective president IMO) and I definitely can't stand Howard Dean's politics. Barak Obama seems intelligent and articulate, but he kind of reminds me of Jimmy Carter, and I think he might have similar effectiveness as a President to Carter.

There are a few major issues that will decide my vote for president:

1)Bringing the Government back to fiscal solvency. Right now deficits are out of control and our government is looking at serious financial problems in like 15-20 years if something isn't done.

2)A sensible approach and timetable for pulling our forces out of Iraq. We need to get out of there, but it is apparent we can't just pack up and leave overnight. Somebody needs to come up with an actual plan with reasonable objectives and a timeline for withdrawel.

3)Immigration reform. Our country needs to tighten up the borders, actively enforce current laws, and streamline the process for legally obtaining visas. We also must get some kind of standardized ID card in our country.

4)Tort reform. Civil suits are out of control in the United States and the trial lawyers (and a few lawsuit winners) are making a killing at the expense of teh rest of us. I could never vote for a ticket with somebody like John Edwards on it.

5) Health care reform. There needs to be universal access to health insurance in the U.S. The big thing about this is that it has to be done in a financially sound manner. I think the only way to achieve this would require tort reform and immigration policy reform first.

Hopefully a candidate for '08 will address all of these issues, but somehow I doubt it.

[Onekiddiekop]

Hillary Clinton or Maxine Waters.

[JohnnyLawman]

OHHHHH by the way. I think I want Bill O'Riley in the white house. The man calls it as it is. He believes that law enforcement is restricted in many ways and has good ideas on some laws and how they actually should be......

Bill O'Riley Pres.
Shaun Hannity VP.
G. Gordon Liddy Chief of Staff

good picks !!

mine are Mc Cain, Rudy G., Condi & if possible Ahhnold :cool:

[Garbage Man]

good picks !!

mine are Mc Cain, Rudy G., Condi & if possible Ahhnold :cool:


DO not be fooled by "Ahnold" he makes Powel look conservative. Those of us in public safety in California hate the guy. The first thing he tried to do was revoke aspects of our pensions, like widows benefits. We are very fortunate he cant be president.

I would vote for any opponent of Hillary. I love how the Clinton people act like Monica is the only scandal of a scandal plague administration. I hated those guys from week one. Remember travel gate? When Hilary fired all the civil servants in the travel office just so she could put in her friends and relatives? What do you think that was about? The travel office writes a lot of checks. It was the first cash cow the Clintons sets their sights on when they embarked on ripping off America. And when the wrongfully fired civil servants fought to regain their jobs She made completely false allegation that they were embezzling and sent the FBI on them.

Or when she left the white house she literally stole national treasures. Then when she had to give them back her staff vandalized the White House.

I don

[Santori]

Can any of you Clinton Cultists please tell just what Clinton did during his eight years in office that would even qualify as medicore let alone good? He sure as hell did nothing that could be even remotely classified as great.

He did spout big lies often enough that people believed. He undoubtedly could have made ol' Joe Goebbels envious.


happy holidays,

JW

Well, one thing. He got Congress to pass a resolution declaring that it was U.S. policy to change the regime in Iraq (something about defying UN resolutions, terrorism, WMD, and despotism). History will tell us if that was good, bad, or indifferent.

Oh, I just noticed. I'm disqualified from responding.

[Santori]

I'm looking for Hillary in 2008. And how can you people say that Bill Clinton was one of our worst presidents? He is one of the best presidents we've ever had! Bush is a moron. Anyone ever hear of separation between church and state? How can we let this man talk about how God is speaking to him and telling him what to do? Is he the Pope now?

Has anyone ever listened to him speak? I've heard 4 year olds that can say bigger words without stuttering.

Gee, this is fun!

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country."
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
"The furture will be better tomorrow."
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the poles."
"For NASA, space is still a high priority."
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.
"It's time for human beings to enterr the solar system."
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impirities in our air and water that are doing it."

2004 Presidential Candidate ________________________________________

[stlcexp]

I would vote for Monica Lewinsky if she ran. She was sure good to Bill, and could be a role model for other women!

[djack16]

I'm voting for this guy.

www.walken2008.com

Actually no. In reality I'm a baby-killing, atheist, communist, gun-grabbing liberal and it's too early to tell who I will vote for.

Yeah and to all of the dense, conservative members of this board the above is mostly a joke...except for the atheist and liberal parts...those are not jokes. :cool: .

[Savcop]

;) Bill O'reilly
;) Sean Hannity

[GB0610]

I agree with you on that aspect, but Bush has made some questionable comments/decisions regarding the seperation of church and state. He has made quite an effort to put governmaent money into "faith based" organizations. He also has given the religious right far too muich influence with the FCC. He even made a comment that "the jury is still out on Evolution" and that it shouldn't be taught in schools. While I wouldn't go as far as to say he is violating the constitution, Bush does seem to do a lot of pandering to the religious right.

First, faith based organizations do more for the community they support than do the GOV. programs that are comparable. The GOV programs waist money and are not being held accountable. So your point here doesn

[BigPat]

[QUOTE=GB0610]First, faith based organizations do more for the community they support than do the GOV. programs that are comparable. The GOV programs waist money and are not being held accountable. So your point here doesn

[The Colonel(44)]

I think Pat Robertson needs to make another run for the Top post,at least we all know his views now,KILL,KILL,KILL,KILL,and Bombs away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[Santori]

Regardless of efficiency, it is not the place of the government to give money to religious organizations. That is a government endosement of religion.

The Constitution prohibits the "establishment" of religion. Historically, the Drafters were concerned about a repeat of their experience with the Church of England, the established, "official," religion of the United Kingdom in a very real way at the time. All else in relatively recent times is judicial gloss by gentlemen who mean well but believe themselves only losely bound to what the Drafters intended (being [they believe] smarter and more sophisticated in every way than those antigue rural hicks).

And The Supremes have yet to agree with you. Many denominational universities and other schools get, collectively, $billions/year in federal aid. Why? Because they make good use of the money. Meanwhile, corrected for inflation, the per student cost of public education has doubled over thirty years.

Thankfully, we have no established state religion, and there seems little threat of that.

For my $.02, Darwin may have missed on some points (Some changes apparently happen faster than he allowed for), but evolution is still science and addresses very different issues than deciding why She made the universe in the shape She selected.

[GB0610]

Regardless of efficiency, it is not the place of the government to give money to religious organizations. That is a government endosement of religion.



FCC chairman Powell has gone crazy issuing fines over anything that could be considered "offensive" by fundies. There has even been discussion recently about regulating the content of cable TV and satellite radio. The thought of the FCC regulating the media services that I pay for makes my blood boil.

I think Howard Stern sucks, but the fines that he received this year were way out of line.



You are very wrong on this point. There is no debate about the validity of evolution among scientists or science educators. There is a political movement to stop the teaching of evolution in schools, however, the objections to evolution are not based upon scientific reasons. The creationist/ID movement rejects science and rejects reason. If you read the 13 page thread on the subject you can see where the scientific evidence lies.



Bush's personal religion is not important to me. I do feel that he has given certain extremist religious elements in his party undue influence over his public policy.

Well, I simply disagree.

The FCC may regulate, but the majority of Americans do not want to things they see coming out of the TV or hear coming out of the radio (public broadcast of course, in no way did I suggest that paid for or private stations are included) to be there anymore, as I noted and gave examples for. You obviously dont want to cite specifics, or address the clear examples I gave.

By giving any and all religious organizations money to conduct charity, the G is not endorsing a particular religion. You argument has no merit. And if you think that by pointing to the fact that more Christian denominations receiving money than any other, there is a very simple answer to that. More people in this country claim to be Christian than any other religion and there are more Christian churches than any other.

You may believe that evolution is an entirely excepted theory. And you are right that the majority of scientist follow its model. But once again, we can agree to disagree. Many arguments I have heard, including the brief one I pointed out, which you did not address, clearly explain major holes in the theory. I don't need to read the thread to know that.

What "extremist elements" has he (Bush) given power to. Examples please. And please don't say abortion or some token one like that.

But anyway, I don't think your statements hold water.

[BigPat]

Well, I simply disagree.

The FCC may regulate, but the majority of Americans do not want to things they see coming out of the TV or hear coming out of the radio (public broadcast of course, in no way did I suggest that paid for or private stations are included) to be there anymore, as I noted and gave examples for. You obviously dont want to cite specifics, or address the clear examples I gave.


Here are references to the record fines the FCC has been handing out lately:

http://www.indexonline.org/en/indexindex/articles/2005/1/united-states-fear-of-fcc-fines-forces-self-.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/entertainment/main648911.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0713/p02s01-usgn.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8977-2004Nov23.html

The FCC has given out record fines, and the reason for it is that the Republican Party is trying to appeal to right wing pro-censorship groups like the American Family Association. If the majority of americans did not want to hear this type of programming then it wouldn't have the commercial and rating success that it does. It is simply a case of a few people trying to regulate what the rest of us can listen to.


By giving any and all religious organizations money to conduct charity, the G is not endorsing a particular religion. You argument has no merit. And if you think that by pointing to the fact that more Christian denominations receiving money than any other, there is a very simple answer to that. More people in this country claim to be Christian than any other religion and there are more Christian churches than any other.


It absolutely is an endorsement of religion. Bush clearly stated that he wanted more government services to be put through "faith based organizations." He did not say religiously neutral chritable organizations administered by a church. No church should have control of government money or services, and churches should not be given the right to evangelize people that are trying to utilize government services. If the government is going to give social services they should be administered by the government, not a church.

Also since you are a fellow CBP employess you should be aware that many religious relief organizations actively oppose our enforcement activities in teh area of immigration law. Do some research on Casa Romero, Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. (CLINIC), or the Orantes injunction.


You may believe that evolution is an entirely excepted theory. And you are right that the majority of scientist follow its model. But once again, we can agree to disagree. Many arguments I have heard, including the brief one I pointed out, which you did not address, clearly explain major holes in the theory. I don't need to read the thread to know that.


There is no objection to the theory of evolution among scientists. The objections are only from certain religious and extremist politicians. The arghument that you mentioned does not explain any problem with evolution. There is no one fossil that is the magic "missing link" that has not been found. There are however several million fossils (that have been recovered and classified) that document the evolutionary change of man as well as other animals. I don't want to hijack this thread because there is already another really long thread in which this issue has been pretty much beaten to death.

When Bush says that "the jury is still out on evolution" and that schools should teach intelligent design he is clearly pandering to religious extremists.



What "extremist elements" has he (Bush) given power to. Examples please. And please don't say abortion or some token one like that.


He has tried to appeal to and has been influenced greatly by the extremist religious right.

[GB0610]

Here are references to the record fines the FCC has been handing out lately:

http://www.indexonline.org/en/indexindex/articles/2005/1/united-states-fear-of-fcc-fines-forces-self-.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/entertainment/main648911.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0713/p02s01-usgn.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8977-2004Nov23.html

The FCC has given out record fines, and the reason for it is that the Republican Party is trying to appeal to right wing pro-censorship groups like the American Family Association. If the majority of americans did not want to hear this type of programming then it wouldn't have the commercial and rating success that it does. It is simply a case of a few people trying to regulate what the rest of us can listen to.



It absolutely is an endorsement of religion. Bush clearly stated that he wanted more government services to be put through "faith based organizations." He did not say religiously neutral chritable organizations administered by a church. No church should have control of government money or services, and churches should not be given the right to evangelize people that are trying to utilize government services. If the government is going to give social services they should be administered by the government, not a church.

Also since you are a fellow CBP employess you should be aware that many religious relief organizations actively oppose our enforcement activities in teh area of immigration law. Do some research on Casa Romero, Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. (CLINIC), or the Orantes injunction.



There is no objection to the theory of evolution among scientists. The objections are only from certain religious and extremist politicians. The arghument that you mentioned does not explain any problem with evolution. There is no one fossil that is the magic "missing link" that has not been found. There are however several million fossils (that have been recovered and classified) that document the evolutionary change of man as well as other animals. I don't want to hijack this thread because there is already another really long thread in which this issue has been pretty much beaten to death.

When Bush says that "the jury is still out on evolution" and that schools should teach intelligent design he is clearly pandering to religious extremists.




He has tried to appeal to and has been influenced greatly by the extremist religious right.

That word "extremist" is being thrown around way to liberally. Simply becuase someone beleives that there is a creator, and that the theory of evolution has holes in it, does not make them "extreme", or a fanatic, or any other offensive term you'd like to call them. There are many intelligent people/scientists in this world who claim to follow this belief.

I really don't care about what religious organizations say or feel about the war at the border. It in no way affects this argument or relates to the money given to faith based organizations.
And by giving money to religious organizations, the G is not endorsing A religious organization. It is allowing these groups to help people recover from a variety of issues that the G is unable to help with, for whatever reason. In my opinion it is the bureacracy. Simply put, they are getting the job done and are being more effective with the money they are given.

[NC Marine]

I really hope one day there will be more than 2 partys to choose from. Republicans and Democrats when it all comes down to it are politicians. They want money and the vote that keeps them there. I respect President Bush and feel he is a great President, though I dont agree with his soft approach to the border, and the continued outsourcing of American jobs. If this keeps up all that will be left will be really rich people working in sky scrapers and people working in fast food restaraunts because they were laid off.

Probably this time next year we will see who the likely contenders are. I have no idea who Id vote for but the most conservative candidate will have my vote.

[Mike11]

I really hope one day there will be more than 2 partys to choose from. Republicans and Democrats when it all comes down to it are politicians. They want money and the vote that keeps them there. I respect President Bush and feel he is a great President, though I dont agree with his soft approach to the border, and the continued outsourcing of American jobs. If this keeps up all that will be left will be really rich people working in sky scrapers and people working in fast food restaraunts because they were laid off.

Probably this time next year we will see who the likely contenders are. I have no idea who Id vote for but the most conservative candidate will have my vote.

Agree with the above. The cost of doing business is driving the work out of the U.S. And you can blame a big part of that on the unions.

back to the theme:
Listen to or read Newt's book......he speaks too plain and with too much common sense so he'll never get very far, but I would support him in a minute

[BigPat]

That word "extremist" is being thrown around way to liberally. Simply becuase someone beleives that there is a creator, and that the theory of evolution has holes in it, does not make them "extreme", or a fanatic, or any other offensive term you'd like to call them. There are many intelligent people/scientists in this world who claim to follow this belief.


Believing in God is not an extremist view. Rejecting modern science is an extremist view. There are not "many" scientists that do not accept evolutionary biology. Believing that the earth is flat is an extremist view. Believing that modern medicine is a scam and accepting scientology instead is an extremist view. Refusing to accept the findings of evolutionary biology despite an overwhelming amount of evidence is an extremist view.


I really don't care about what religious organizations say or feel about the war at the border. It in no way affects this argument or relates to the money given to faith based organizations.


This shows the conflicts that can arise when the government gives control of it's money to nongovernmental organizations with a political or religious agenda. I also disagree with the left-wing tendency to try and give government grants to nongivernmental organizations who push a left-wing political agenda.


And by giving money to religious organizations, the G is not endorsing A religious organization.


They certainly are. The are giving a religious group control over government services that should be controlled by the government. The government is giving it's power to a church, that defnitely constitutes endorsement of religion.


It is allowing these groups to help people recover from a variety of issues that the G is unable to help with, for whatever reason.


Not really. The government is going to provide the service anyway- in this case they are giving the money and power to a church instead of controlling it themselves.


In my opinion it is the bureacracy.


The church has a bureacracy just like the government. Instead of using the costs of the bureacracy to make the government bigger, they are making the church bigger.


Simply put, they are getting the job done and are being more effective with the money they are given.

How would administration by a church be economically more effective than administration by the government? The only model that could be more efficient might be administration by a private for-profit subcontractor. A church is no more efficient than a government entity.

This is why I think having "faith based organizations" administer government services is a bad idea:

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/TeachingwithCurrentEvents/ConstitutionNewswire/15560.shtml

[GB0610]

You are making argument after argument far to simplistic.

I think we are about done here. By saying anymore, I would be repeating myself, and so would you with any response.

We'll just have to say that we disagree. Be safe out on the line.

[Godzilla22]

I will vote for the person that will throw the patriot act to the bottom of historys trash heap!

It's incredibly sad to see how quickly we will allow our constitution to be shredded in the name of temporary safety.


Where is Ronald Wilson Reagan when you really need him?

[KY PO]

:D Jenna Jameson for President in 2008 :D

I'm starting a write in campaign!

[The Colonel(44)]

Norman Schwarzkopf The General who led the first Gulf War,Amend the Constitution allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be his running mate. :)

[Mike11]

Fast forward to 2008- who would you like to see as US President?

It has to be somebody who can actually be President (EX: not W Bush or Clinton- term limits). They do not have to be politicians but the person has to be living...otherwise most of us would probably list Truman, JFK, Ike, FDR or Reagan. :D

Non- US folks are welcome to give an opinion (their answers may be as entertaining as they are interesting).;)

My picks:

John McCain- War Hero, does not pander, not afraid to go against his own Party in speaking his mind, seems to be able to work ok with the Dems.

Mitt Romney- He is a conservative Republican Governor of a liberal state (MA) so he must be doing something right.

McCain - panders to the media, has come out on the wrong side of the second admendment a few times. Doesn't respect the 1st amend, can you say McCain-Fiengold?? He is all about McCain........My pick - Newt!!! Think that is strange? Then you are not really "up to snuff", as my friend Rush would say!!!!

[GWBJR]

Norman Schwarzkopf The General who led the first Gulf War,Amend the Constitution allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be his running mate. :)

I thought the country was moving away from affirmative action/preferential treatment?

[SlowDownThere]

I voted for Ralph Nader last time. If he is still alive in 2008 (he doesn't look well) I'll probably vote for him again.

While I don't like all of his politics, I think he is not lying to me. The majors just tell us what they think we want to hear.

[RedRaider911]

Probly whom ever is the Libertarian candidate

[2ndtimearound]

Bill Frist for President
Condi Rice for Vice President.



YEA! I could agree with that...although it would be nice to fit Zell in there some where.

[pkagel]

We all know Ron Paul will never run, too bad, he's a great guy.

Probly whom ever is the Libertarian candidate

[1sgkelly]

USAWanted

:D

[SlowDownThere]

USAWanted

:D

I second the nomination. hahahahahaha

[jamespol]

Hmm let me see.

For the democrats:
Pres: Lieberman (D-Conn)
VP: Sheila Jackson Lee (D-18-TX)

Republicans:
Pres: Condoleezza Rice
VP: Sam Brownback

See, the Presidents I chose are middle-grounds in their parties, and their running mates are extremists in their parties to balance the ticket.

[americanoutdrsm]

Any body except a Bush or a Clinton, I am sick of them both. They think they are American royalty or something. I am going to vote for the guy I have never heard of as long as they are for military pay raises against abortion, for the death penalty and against gun control.

[BrickCop]

Then you are not really "up to snuff", as my friend Rush would say!!!!

Oh no Mike, don't tell me you're a Rush parrot. :D


Rush is like that tool Michael Moore, they both take a kernel of truth and bastardize it to fit their rigid agendas. In Rush's world Bush is never wrong, in Moore's world Bush is never right... :rolleyes:

Newt? He's ok but I deduct points for dumping his cancer patient wife while she was in the Hospital.

[1042 Trooper]

:) The Punisher. Gotta be "The Punisher."

[JohnnyLawman]

McCain.....................................

[hounddog]

Norman Schwarzkopf The General who led the first Gulf War,Amend the Constitution allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be his running mate. :)

I like your thinking. Unfortunately, that would allow Mrs. Heinze catsup to run against them! ugh!

How about this;
Stormin Norman, pres.
Jeb Bush, vice pres.
Arnold, sec. of state
:confused:

[time4crime]

Bobby Jindal - U.S. Rep, R, Louisiana
This guy is one of the few non-corrupt politicians in Louisiana.

[FredFlash]

The letter you speak of was the letter to the Danburry Baptists. And you are wrong about when it was written. Rehnquist addressed this in his dissent of Wallace v. Jaffree.


Rehnquist also has written further...


never forget to the two Clauses that were explicitly written in the actual constitution...not some letter.

Congress shall 1. make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 2. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

*EDIT I just reread what you said it sounds like you have the concept. I just don't see how some can argue that bush is doing things that violate that clause.


RELIGION IS THE DUTY WHICH WE OWE TO THE CREATOR AND IS WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM THE COGNIZANCE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT

Dear bldg0031:

The concept of totally excluding the duty which we owe to the Creator from the cognizance of civil government had been around for over two hundred years before Thomas Jefferson was even born.

President Jefferson was not even the first to employ the notion of

[1sgkelly]

Who would you like to see as US President in 2008?

I know, I know:


Niceguy07


Because he knows everything, just ask him.

:rolleyes:

Oh that's right he can't; he's a Canadian and he's only 13 years old.

Too bad, so sad.

[FredFlash]

Historically, the Drafters were concerned about a repeat of their experience with the Church of England, the established, "official," religion of the United Kingdom in a very real way at the time. All else in relatively recent times is judicial gloss by gentlemen who mean well but believe themselves only losely bound to what the Drafters intended (being [they believe] smarter and more sophisticated in every way than those antigue rural hicks).



The "No Official National Religion" Interpretation Of The Establishment Clause Is Hogwash!


Counterfeit Christians and other various and sundry fools and scoundrels wishing to unite church and state have been trying to foist the

[ozyran]

I admire John McCain. I don't know how he'd handle the big show but I'd like to find out more about him.

I agree. I bet you he would work wonders in office though. If he ran he would be the reason I finally registered to vote after not being registered (by then) for 9 years.

[SlowDownThere]

Fred Flash;

How do you write such long posts? I mean, where do you find the time?

Also, do you think anyone really reads them?

[hounddog]

I agree. I bet you he would work wonders in office though. If he ran he would be the reason I finally registered to vote after not being registered (by then) for 9 years.

Yeah, like- take away all of our gun ownership rights. He is very anti gun, which means he is a closet liberal, and too afraid to come out. Once upon a time he was an extremely brave and heroic American, now he is a left leaning weanie! :mad:

[Steve354]

In 2008 I would vote for Condoleezza Rice for President if she was to stand for President. Why a Lady you ask. Well why not, Condoeezza is young, she knows her job very well, and from what I have seen of in action she take no crap from anyone. I guess you can say has what it takes to get the job done and some WOMAN are better at that then us guys.

There are two other things here as well. 1 How many of Secretary,s of State gone on to be President.

2 I have not read the Constitution but I dont think there is anything in that says a Lady could not be President.

[djack16]

Enough of this Condoleeza peddling. Three words folks; face the nation.

[djack16]

Oh and Bill Frist!? Give me a break. This is the guy who dishonestly inserted himself into the Schiavo situation and used his medical background to mislead people.

[djack16]

Yeah, like- take away all of our gun ownership rights. He is very anti gun, which means he is a closet liberal, and too afraid to come out. Once upon a time he was an extremely brave and heroic American, now he is a left leaning weanie! :mad:
This mentality disgusts me. I don't like John McCain but he hasn't forgot who he was. There are plenty of brave and heroic people on the left you couldn't possibly appreciate because of your blind, partisan loyalty.

[1042 Trooper]

This mentality disgusts me. I don't like John McCain but he hasn't forgot who he was. There are plenty of brave and heroic people on the left you couldn't possibly appreciate because of your blind, partisan loyalty.

Name one. C'mon...I dare ya. :mad:

[djack16]

Name one. C'mon...I dare ya. :mad:
Do you seriously believe conservatives have a monopoly on courage!? That's a laugh. It's like saying "Name one person who's eaten shrimp! I dare you!" You sound like an idiot and like you've been raised in an isolated cave. The military service members of my family for starters and those of my friends' families would be a logical start.

I bet you still believe the Swift Boat Veteran's even as their lies about John Kerry had been proven. Wake up! He's a combat veteran who SERVED HIS COUNTRY. Not only that, the man sacrificed not only his flesh but chased down and killed an enemy.

Thank goodness I am not like you. I can honestly evaluate both sides. I have seen honorable conservatives, some REALLY conservative, and appreciated their service; even if their political views I find unconscionable.

Makes me wonder where the hell this type of mental disfunction comes from. It's despicable!

[1042 Trooper]

Do you seriously believe conservatives have a monopoly on courage!? That's a laugh. It's like saying "Name one person who's eaten shrimp! I dare you!" You sound like an idiot and like you've been raised in an isolated cave. The military service members of my family for starters and those of my friends' families would be a logical start.

I bet you still believe the Swift Boat Veteran's even as their lies about John Kerry had been proven. Wake up! He's a combat veteran who SERVED HIS COUNTRY. Not only that, the man sacrificed not only his flesh but chased down and killed an enemy.

Thank goodness I am not like you. I can honestly evaluate both sides. I have seen honorable conservatives, some REALLY conservative, and appreciated their service; even if their political views I find unconscionable.

Makes me wonder where the hell this type of mental disfunction comes from. It's despicable!

First, you sadly typical hate spewing liberal, I am fully aware that John "I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it" Kerry served in Viet Nam. How could I not with the staged video he shot and the faked injuries he boasted about for a year while he told us a thousand (ad nauseum) times about it.

Second, yes I do believe the Swifties - they were there and saw this coward first hand.

Finally, you still, have not, named one. Try again, after you finish your Kool Aid.

[BigPat]

Yeah, John Kerry's military service makes him look like a complete coward when compared to the distinguished and valorous miltary careers of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.... :rolleyes:

[BigPat]

I am not really a left winger, and I am not even a Democrat, but this knee jerk conservatism is gettingkind of silly.

Here is one example of a liberal with a distinguished military record:

Bob Kerrey (D) Nebraska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey)

He is a navy seal and medal of honor winner. I doubt that he is a "coward".

Military service does not always make for a good President. One good example is Jimmy Carter- he had an exemplary military record but was one of the least effective Presidents ever.

[1042 Trooper]

Yeah, John Kerry's military service makes him look like a complete coward when compared to the distinguished and valorous miltary careers of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.... :rolleyes:

Uh....Cheney wasn't in the military, sport. And Dubya served in the guard. As far as I know he never aided the enemy causing torture and humikiation to our guys in POW camps. Kerry, however, well.....

[1042 Trooper]

I am not really a left winger, and I am not even a Democrat, but this knee jerk conservatism is gettingkind of silly.

Here is one example of a liberal with a distinguished military record:

Bob Kerrey (D) Nebraska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey)

He is a navy seal and medal of honor winner. I doubt that he is a "coward".

Military service does not always make for a good President. One good example is Jimmy Carter- he had an exemplary military record but was one of the least effective Presidents ever.

Yeah - and today he has evolved into a traitor. As to Bob Kerrey, stay tuned...

[BigPat]

Uh....Cheney wasn't in the military, sport. And Dubya served in the guard. As far as I know he never aided the enemy causing torture and humikiation to our guys in POW camps. Kerry, however, well.....

I guess the sarcasm flew rigfht over your head...

It's amazing that you can call John Kerry a coward when he did have somewhat distinguished military service, yet you have no problem with Bush going awol in the national guard or with Cheney's complete lack of military service....

[1042 Trooper]

I guess the sarcasm flew rigfht over your head...

It's amazing that you can call John Kerry a coward when he did have somewhat distinguished military service, yet you have no problem with Bush going awol in the national guard or with Cheney's complete lack of military service....

Distinguished? Huh? Did I miss it? Explain the distinguished part PLEASE!

As to military service, does not having served mean something negative? Is that a requirment to be VP? Go slow, I may have missed that one too.

And again with the Kool Aid factor - Bush NEVER WENT AWOL!!!! NEVER!

BACK AY FROM THE KOOL AID!

[BigPat]

Distinguished? Huh? Did I miss it? Explain the distinguished part PLEASE!



He received a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. I would say that that is distinguished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_kerry#Military_service_.281966-1970.29

I personally disagree with his later actions, but that does not change the nature of his military service.


As to military service, does not having served mean something negative? Is that a requirment to be VP? Go slow, I may have missed that one too.


The whole point is that you are berating Democrats and "liberals' as cowards, and you are calling John Mccain and John Kerry cowards and traitors. Yet while you are calling folks with distinguished military service records "cowards", you idolize Bush and Cheney. Cheney has no military service, and bush didn't show up to drills, yet you seem to think that those guys are heroes yet the actual combat veterans are cowards. Can you not see the obvious hypocrisy of your position? Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying before you start ranting?


And again with the Kool Aid factor - Bush NEVER WENT AWOL!!!! NEVER!


He may not have been marked as AWOL, but he certainly scammed his way out of plenty of drills. Again, before making your inane kool-aid comments, research teh issue a bit....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf

You should try researching the actual facts sometime.


BACK AY FROM THE KOOL AID!
[/quote]

You seem to drink into whatever "kool-aid" that Rush Limbaugh et al. give to you. Try researching the facts and thinking for yourself sometime...

[1042 Trooper]

He received a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. I would say that that is distinguished.

Do you know how he received them? I do. Shamefull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_kerry#Military_service_.281966-1970.29

I personally disagree with his later actions, but that does not change the nature of his military service.


The whole point is that you are berating Democrats and "liberals' as cowards, and you are calling John Mccain and John Kerry cowards and traitors.

Yet while you are calling folks with distinguished military service records "cowards", you idolize Bush and Cheney. Cheney has no military service, and bush didn't show up to drills, yet you seem to think that those guys are heroes yet the actual combat veterans are cowards. Can you not see the obvious hypocrisy of your position? Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying before you start ranting?



He may not have been marked as AWOL, but he certainly scammed his way out of plenty of drills. Again, before making your inane kool-aid comments, research teh issue a bit....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf

You should try researching the actual facts sometime.




You seem to drink into whatever "kool-aid" that Rush Limbaugh et al. give to you. Try researching the facts and thinking for yourself sometime...[/QUOTE]


These typical liberal misquotes have got to end....

First, I never even suggested that John McCain was a coward. He is a true patriot and a hero. He's just goofed up politically. It is Carter I called a traitor. Get it right.

Next, once again you ***-u-me. When did I say I idolized Dubya? Or Cheney? All I said was that Dubya has a backbone. Dick Cheney IS a brilliant statesman but I didn't go there in this trhread. You made it up, a common liberal trait.

Next, you said AWOL. I said no. I was right. Admit it.

Finally, I have not listened to Rush for years. We don't get his show in my country.

Keep drinking!

[Steve354]

Two years is a long way off, and no one knowns what,s a round the corner. So there is nothing to say that Presidnet Bush can,t do a other tream. :D

[BrickCop]

- Bumping my 2004 Thread -

Its interesting reading some of the replies over the past 3+ years. My support was for McCain but that was before he installed a turnstyle and Welcome mat on the Mexican border.

[JBStateCO]

I Like Freaken OBAMA

[N1ghtCl3rk]

It's unfortunate that Romney left the running. He wasn't going to win anyway, but I wish he had lasted until I could vote for him in Indiana on May 6th. This presidential election will be a wasted one for me, as I see little difference between McCain and the liberal Democrat candidates.

[Sgt_H]

It's unfortunate that Romney left the running. He wasn't going to win anyway, but I wish he had lasted until I could vote for him in Indiana on May 6th. This presidential election will be a wasted one for me, as I see little difference between McCain and the liberal Democrat candidates.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmI2YjE1Y2QxODI1ZGI1ZGNhNmQwOThlNWVlMmNlMTc=&w=MA==

[dano9258]

Obama, and if he doesnt get the nomination, then Im voting Independant. No way will I let another republican in there.

[matyoka]

There is no one, Republican or Democrat that I would vote for. Hillary won't make it, America is not ready for a female prez. Obama, well he's got worst chances than Hillary... most people know why. An LDS president? NOT in my life time. Who is left?

[Southflaguy]

Colin Powell :) or Hillary :o