With all the talk over the Democratic candidates (Obama, Hillery, Edwards, etc) I am hearing very little about the Republicans candidates. Is it because a republican almost can bet that they will not be elected next year with all the bad publicity that Bush has brought them or is it that our Media is truly left centered? I still havent picked a candidate yet and probably wont until late October of next year.

I'd say it's a lot to do with left media. Personally i can't vote for any one they offer. They have no issues. Except more taxes.

I disagree with that. In 2004, I felt that Bush would not be re-elected simply because of all the "bad publicity" that he had gotten, the anti-war sentiment, the attitude that he shouldn't have won in 2000 - especially since he didn't win a majority the votes - and many other problems. But, the Democrats nominated someone who the majority of the US felt would be even worse, and Bush won the election by the largest vote differential in history - almost 10 million votes!

The Democrats are making themselves look even worse recently, as their Democrat led Congress has an even lower rating than the President. All their "we'll make everything right if you just elect us" ranting is now coming back to haunt them as they attempt to make everything "left", and ultimately just aren't resolving anything. If they, once again, nominate a devisive, indecisive person, they may not be successful in '08 either.




Well, there is that, too.




I may not wait that long, but I'm certainly not getting too excited over any of the characters on either side of the aisle right now.

Oh, I'm registered "no party affiliation", so I'm not worried that my party won't nominate the right person!

Don't know whether the Unity08 folks will make any difference, but I sure agree with them (from their "What we believe" statement):

The Republicans are just letting time pass. Once the Dems. have enough self-inflicted bullet wounds in their feet, the Republicans will stand up and say, "As much fun as it's been to watch those clowns, it's now time to get serious. The greatest threat to the Dems. is the Dems.

I fear Hillary will win, simply because she is a woman.
A lot of Americans don't care what she stands for - they just want to make history happen.

I personally am leaning towards Ron Paul as of right now. I can't vote (yes, I'm a young one ), though . The rest of the Republican candidates tend to make me very sad at what they plan on doing - not a whole heck of a lot.

I think Paul is a likely candidate to win the nomination of a party, due to his large cyber support. I, personally, think it's going to be Clinton or Obama vs. Paul or Guliani.

If Guliani gets the nomination, I would vote Democratic. He's too focused on what the terrorists did to "his city" to make me feel secure with him.

Anyone that votes for a candidate based on the candidate's sex deserve Billary. Fortunately, I doubt if there are enough people that are that stupid to have a significant effect on the outcome of the election. I hope not, anyways. What it'll come down to is who can buy the most foreign criminals' votes.

So you're predicting another Republican victory.

personally I'd like to see John Edwards take the Dem side. The only problem is that they are all plastic. not real topics or issues just the war and taxes without a solution.

Hey MattV.

This may be a bit of a surprise considering how opposite our views are in the Faith department, but I actually agree with what you are saying in the political arena. Officially, I am a republican. Personally, I consider myself a conservative more than belonging to a political party. A very telling example of how much the Dem's are pandering to the far left was the debate they had on the LOGO channel.

Let them shoot themselves in the foot.


Seafox14

Can't. Stand. Hillary.

I will probably vote Republican, (especially if Hillary get the nomination), but I have no clue who I want to support right now. I do agree, however, that the Dems will eventually "shoot themselves in the foot." It may take awhile...hopefully, people will take notice and act before they vote fof Hillary.

Can you tell how I feel about her?

Postscript: Glunny Wootness, you might agree with what Chris Rock said on the opening skit of an SNL episode this past season: "...real life Guliani's kind of like a pit bull; he's great when you have a burglar, but if you don't, he just might eat your kids."

I would like to see Kucinch take the Dem side. Mostly because after watching the YouTube debates, my views seem to match up more with his than any other ones. Plus he's from Ohio.

Egad...voting for the gender or the state?!?

As for Hilary...God help us!

I'm just tired of voting for the lessor of the two evils.

It is interesting that so many of us seem to somewhat agree with Unity08's statement.

It's appears obvious to us that the party's don't represent "we, the people", yet nothing changes.

taxation without representation.....Rings a bell ?! Been getting worse for decades,. Time for a party. Head for Boston and throw something in...maybe Ted Kennedy

I believe that may cause flooding up and down the east coast, boopme.

Otherwise, I'm there!

I vote we go to Texas and throw the whole Bush clan in then the flooding will create a bigger "moat" between the US and Mexico (thus killing 2 birds with one stone). BTW Ted can get thrown in as well to make it even bigger

Haha! I love it!

People forget (if they ever knew) that way, way back in the annals of history, a couple hundred years or so, two diametrically opposed factions formed that became the Democrat and Republican parties. Although the roots of the two parties have become obscured, and their underlying tenets diluted, the basic philosophies of the two parties are quite simple. The Republicans believed that the role of government is to see to the business of the country/state, while the people were allowed to take care of their own business. The Democrat philosophy, on the other hand, is that the government should oversee and control/regulate everything, including our personal affairs!

The Left has become attractive to so many people because it espouses the abdication of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is a concept that will make any staunch Leftist cringe. This "not my fault" attitude is why we have juries awarding obscene settlements to people for being stupid.

I like to watch court shows when the weathers too bad to do much of anything else. I think it was on "Judge Joe Brown" that I saw the ridiculous unfold before my very eyes. A guy was suing this whiny broad for the amount of the insurance deductible after she rear-ended him and nearly destroyed his car - and the kid in the car-seat in the back. OK, that's reasonable. But she was counter-suing him for medical expenses!! So, this guy is sitting at a red light, minding his own business, this broad slams into the back of his car at thirty-five miles an hour, and she wants him to pay for the results of her own stupidity*!! Well, the case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the Judge read the whiny one the riot act for even imagining that she was going to get anything from him. And told her to be thankful that that kid hadn't been injured or killed - she wouldn't be suing anybody from jail.

A Lib. judge probably would have given her what she wanted - plus pain and suffering - and dismissed the other guy for being so disrespectful as to stop in front of her in the first place!


* She hit the guy because she was bent over looking for a bottle of water that she'd dropped!

Hah!!

Had to laugh at that one. Just too funny.

I can't understand how some people will quickly rise to Kennedy's defense. He's a broken-down, besotted old fool that bought his way out of a manslaughter conviction, years ago. The next time you hear someone espousing Kennedy's greatness, just remind them that he's the only brother that no one thought was worth shooting.

I usually end up voting Republican (registered as an Independent). I'll probably end up voting for Paul, just because he didn't start his political career as a shyster.

Yeah, me too, and I've reconsidered -

this would cause an unparalleled level of polution in Boston Harbor!

I take it you haven't been near Boston Harbor lately. Don't think it'd really make that much of a difference.

I've never truly believed that one's political party really means much. Sure, you've got the people that actually do as the party claims, with no hidden agendas. You then have the majority of politicians: the ones that make claims that please the majority of America, and instead do what gives them the most money. The best example is fence-sitters who change their opinions on a subject one way or another, based on popular opinion at the time.

However, I know America will never give up the party system - we've had it so ingrained into our brains that we can't get it out. I would at least like five parties, for that makes the most sense to me. We need a conservative party, a liberal party, a libertarian party, and a statist party. As of right now, we have black and white, but most people fail to see the gray area in between.

If I do not see someone worth voting for I think I am going to vote for myself ha ha.
This is my first year as a legal registered voter and I have my card. I won't vote for OBAMA or no Clintons!

Here here!! I'd vote for you!!

Great see now I have two votes already, if a few million more vote for me you can have a president who will do something.

I will if elected president give 1 AA battery out to everyone in America. And if I win by a landslide I will give make it a rechargeable one.

Well, that should get you the Green vote!

Yes I did not think about that at the time.

Thank you my fellow American! ha ha You will get two rechargeable ones if I win.

ahhh the sweet smell of lobbyists

Wow! Two rechargeables!


That'll get you the dark Green vote!

Sorry, CGM3! I think you shorted out already. One must be 35 to run and ?to win?

Youngest president to ever win because of his super smartness and dashing good looks is now sworn into office.....haha

You still don't get it CGM3.

One must be 35 years of age to even run.
I don't figure you'll reach that age mucking about with milkers (no offense intended)!

JFK is the MAN to beat.

And someone shot him dead for whatever reason.

Its a joke.

"I don't figure you'll reach that age mucking about with milkers (no offense intended)!"

Confused as that makes no sense.

CGM3 -

With the platform you've chosen and the promisses you've made,

I have no doubt that we will vote in a Constitutional Amendment

lowering the minimum age for President prior to the election.


At least, I hope so - my wireless mouse batteries are getting low.

I wonder how the authors of the Constitution decided on thirty-five. I think the age of eligibility to hold office should be the same as the age of majority. And I bet if some sexy young hottie were elected President, she'd do a lot towards improving "foriegn relations. If you get my drift.

Hilton '16 campaign.
Scary thought.

It'd have to be a hottie that could booze it up with foreign leaders, diplomats, and what not.

It seems that more and more, the Presidency is becoming like the Roman Empire in its decline: Emperors were determined by who gave the most money to the Pretorian Guard. Most political positions now are bought and paid for. And we determine our representatives by negative adds on the media, not by quality of character, intelligence, and patriotism.
Government is a faceless monster.
Z

You guys should really check out Ron Paul - he's actually worth getting excited about! I've pretty much voted Democrat for the past 25 years, but I just changed my party affiliation to Republican so that I can show my support for him in the Primaries (You have to change party affilliation by October 12 of THIS year to be able to vote in the Republican primaries this coming January & February).

I want us out of the Iraq war - NOW. Ron Paul will do it faster than anyone - even the Democrats.

The Democrats won't do it, anyways. I think it was on this forum there was a thread about them not being able to promise us to be out of there by 2013. I can't say we should even leave, anymore.
We either blow it up or make it the 51st state.

Bad idea - then the environmentalists would step in, and nobody would get the oil!

Yes we must protect the barren wasteland they call a desert. So many vibrant life forms live in it.

See,

it's already started!

Aren't deserts the places to find the best hallucinogenic plants?

I always heard that was Berkley (the home of BSD and LSD)

I believe that the refined form of the drugs of choice maybe found there, however the desert is the home of the mother plant the "poppy" which is harvested by the poorest of the vast number of grass roots people who do it to put bread and butter on the table and are enslaved by defacto warlords to do this.

This plant makes the economy flourish and stoppage of this harvesting will inflame the attitudes of the poor and create more blood shed for the intervening soldiers. It should have been part of the "big picture" when this whole project was taken on. Now hind sight exposes this mega issue front and centre on the stage. How it will be dealt with when the grass roots people will rise up to protect their income which the country's leaders want ,only manifests more blood shed with the cost of soldiers lives to become insurmountable.
What the solution is??? Is beyond me....the numbers of these grass root people and their desperate circumstance is indeed a mega problem.
It is like taking food from a starving wolf. Just MHO.

I don't believe either party is considering the effects of this problem. It is one that only adds to the anarchy that exists b/c the plant is likely used by these numerous grass root people to make coping with their circumstances easier and thus who knows to what end their drug effected minds will go to protect themselves. Again JMHO

When I was stationed in Arizona, you could just go out into the desert and pick your own peyote.

I'm sorry to be going off topic here. Are you suggesting that somehow drug farmers are to be supported. This product that makes it's way to the US and other places is an important business that our elected officials should be concentrating on some way to help them out. These poor little drug farmers are our priority. I always wondered why we didn't just go in and burn the total crop. I'm not trying to sound nasty here but I fail to see the value of these crops after the small actual pharmaceutical crop.

I am not sure where the idea of support these "poor people" stems from? My post is pretty clear that I believe that the government should have considered how to rid of this nasty harvesting of the plants that are likely also used internally by the harvesters and thus compounds their problematic mental state which then further adds hostility to the other countries intervention who are there to help subside chaos.

Then of course there is the secondary issue where these refined plants are processed and ultimately find their destination to more users within the western hemisphere and contribute to the demise of our society and the family unit that once was a respected way of life.
That is what I was trying to put across....I believe the problem should have been identified at the"get go" and a proposed plan in place as to how to deal with it!!

That should have been a thought out project by senior officials and we would not be in a position of having to bemoan it right now.

OK I see now, I wasn't sure and needed to ask. Appreciate the clarification.