Shoot 'em up :-D
Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)
-
Big items to get elected this year, Amon are:
Should we do anything to fix the economy, or is it fine? (It hasn’t been fine since the new Congress took over in 2007, IMHO)
Should we give illegal aliens, who are felons, amnesty and forgive their felonies? (McCain, Hillary and Barrack are all for this, Edwards and the rest are not)
Is the sub-prime debacle (the 5% of homes being fore-closed on) something we should bail people out on, or should we let the market correct itself?
Should the Bush tax cuts be repealed in 2010, or confirmed?Items not issues are:
Gay Marriage
Abortion
IraqAll three of those are MAJOR democrat issues and without them, they will be hurting. However, if the Republicans do not nominate Mitt Romney with MAYBE McCain as VP, but preferably Newt or Fred as VP, it won’t matter how many negatives there are because Barrack or Hillary can basically smile into the camera, say nothing, and glide right into the White House.
Why?
Because Huckabee and McCain cannot get the Republicans out to vote. More Republicans would actually vote Democrat then vote McCain, he’s THAT hated by the Midwest, West and Northwest (the seat of power for the Republicans, Democrats generally hold the deep South (Florida, specifically) and the North East + California.)
McCain is the candidate of choice by the Liberals because he is a liberal. Conservatives don’t really like him, except with the possibility of South Carolina, but he didn’t exactly pull out a very strong win there either. He won by a mere 3%. That’s a statistical tie. (Most polls are reported as +/- 4%, that means he could have lost by 1% or won by as much as 7%.)
-
i’m from the midwest, more midwest than you and people around here like McCain b/c few listen to rush or hannity. they agree with most things they say, but man are they disrespected by us. idiot blabbermouths. and this coming from the MOST REPUBLICAN (as by voting %) state in the nation.
so if mitt sold out Mass. b/c it was bankrupt. you’d be for him selling out america to saudi princes, japanese corporations, chinese banks etc…. thats what i heard.
and pervavita…McCain was against tax cuts, b/c he said at the time of the votes, he’d only be for them if we cut spending to match them. he wanted spending cuts. you can trust McCain to slash the budget make government smaller.
and Jen, McCain doesnt want your vote, as he says…if you dont agree with me, dont vote for me. he has a warriors attitude. so go vote for stalin as you say. or vote for hillary and loudly tell that to your republican friends.
and to answer switch, i thought you knew that conservatives are hell bent on Mitt b/c he is a guy who was the uber-liberal…big state government telling people what they can or cant do, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, liked high taxes to keep the state flush with cash to misspend and threaten with, agaisnt capital punishment, and then changed is mind all of a sudden. :roll: that, and he’s a mormon. and if you have the intelligence to believe that the indians are the lost tribes of isreal well then… :roll: perhaps people will think you are not even as smart as bush. or that the garden of eden could somehow possibly be in missouri, b/c i’m sure the writers of the bible were referring to missouri. and to how the leaders of the church are cold blooded murderers but hey does that matter…maybe.
and no way barack can win anything. the world is a dangerous place now, and he knows nothing. and no silly lady, republicans wont vote for a democrat JUST LIKE YOU b/c you think they shouldnt like mcCain… :roll:
-
Jen, the economy has been on borrowed time far longer than January 2007.
The 17% decline int he DOW since October based on factors that date from the early 90’s is more than proof of that (personally, my gut tells me that we never recovered in the fundamentals from 1979 and that the “great” economic times since then have all been “Rob peter to pay paul”.
-
There is news coming out that our mayor in Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa may serve as an important cabinet member under a MLXBW presidency. Villaraigosa is a member of Latino group that among other things advocates the return of Mexico’s former territories lost in 1851, and he has an uber pro-immigrant stance on border security.
It would prove to be an abomination to say the least.
-
the wons gained in 1851 were bought outright and legitly. just like alaska. it was shit land at the time. now that americans have built all the infustructure, now they want it back, go figure. if your gov’t already gained by the money on the sale, you dont get it back, and get over it.
back to the primaries. clinton would bring every republican out of the woodwork to vote against her.
-
If you honestly would endorse Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler before McCain, Obama, and Hillary, then you need some help Jen.
Party loyalty is what has destroyed the American political system. It is the good of the nation that should be our paramount concern, not the success of a certain political party.
-
I think Thompson will not only endorse McCain, I think he may run as his VP. That’s the vibe I am picking up right now. Since Thompsons out I have to do some serious reading and decide who my B choice is going to be.
-
M36,
That’s not party loyalty. McCain is, ostensibly, a republican and Hillary is a democrat. I also gave some justification for putting McCain at the absolute bottom of the list - He’s Hillary with male genitalia. They vote the same, they advocate similar political policies, they may as well be the same person. And if they are, in effect, the same person, and Hillary is an unabashed Marxist (she’s always talking about seizing large sectors of the public market and controlling it with the government, that’s about as marxist as you can get) then I think the title of the person who drags this country from it’s knees, face first into the mud and drowns us should have the title of Democrat, not Republican, on the off chance that a true Republican can get elected afterwards and pull us up out of the mud before our heart stops and we cease to exist.
-
McCain is against universal healthcare and he hates big government, and he’s socially conservative while hillary is not she’s a social liberal. are you getting this?
he also wont listen to UN and EU judges, while hillary said she would. he will cut pork which hillary will live off of favors to politicians amounting to lots of pork. and he will personally slap osama bin laden in the face.
-
Balung:
His actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear a word that comes out of his mouth.
-
@Cmdr:
Is the sub-prime debacle (the 5% of homes being fore-closed on) something we should bail people out on, or should we let the market correct itself?
can you please explain this little bit more
thanks
-
the wons gained in 1851 were bought outright and legitly. just like alaska.
well Alaska was bought
Mexican land conquredcant see ˝the link˝ here
-
and Jen, how is McCain liberal when he is against abortion, pro Iraqi war…
he is not Bush, and its good he isnt,
he is smarter :mrgreen:
but he is a right winger, republican, conservative
i simply see him as that way
while Hillary, Obama and Kerry are so alike McCain and Bush arent
thats why McCain will win this elections, i think that even some democrats will vote from him
-i dont know your situation well, but i think he is your man, would you like him or not :mrgreen: -
its called the gadsen purchase amon-sul. it was a legit deal between sovereign governments. and they cant have it back. secondly, texas wasn’t part of america after their war, it was its own republic. it decided to become part of america later. its not america’s fault for texas. same goes for california,…it was its own republic and then became part of america. america never took anything over, they came to america. but we did beat down the mexicans in the war in the 1840’s however.
-
its called the gadsen purchase amon-sul. it was a legit deal between sovereign governments. and they cant have it back. secondly, texas wasn’t part of america after their war, it was its own republic. it decided to become part of america later. its not america’s fault for texas. same goes for california,…it was its own republic and then became part of america. america never took anything over, they came to america. but we did beat down the mexicans in the war in the 1840’s however.
yes, but San Francisco
Los Angeles
those are Spanish names
and USA is a ˝pro-english˝ country
dont know the history well, but i know you ˝stolen˝ some lands to the Mexicans , and to Canada too, Alaskan-Canadian border treaty, it was against Canada, USA ˝stole˝ some of Canadian land
and i ve heard that in the constitution of USA isnt written that english is the official language, is this true or some noncense?
-
Actually Gadsen was a VERY small area of land that was bought. Most of it is extreme southern Arizona.
But the vast majority of the Southwest WAS seized after military conquest against Mexico.
And the US has maintained control over conquered territory in other places too over the years…
- Our bases in Okinawa and Germany
- The US Virgin Islands
- Puerto Rico
- Most of the American Southwest
- Many Pacific Island groups that we only recently restored sovereignty to after controlling them for 50 years.
- Guam
- Some areas of upstate New York and the Canadian border in New England
-
@ncscswitch:
Actually Gadsen was a VERY small area of land that was bought. Most of it is extreme southern Arizona.
But the vast majority of the Southwest WAS seized after military conquest against Mexico.
And the US has maintained control over conquered territory in other places too over the years…
- Our bases in Okinawa and Germany
- The US Virgin Islands
- Puerto Rico
- Most of the American Southwest
- Many Pacific Island groups that we only recently restored sovereignty to after controlling them for 50 years.
- Guam
- Some areas of upstate New York and the Canadian border in New England
thanks for this i found it valuable and interesting 8-)
you just forget Guantanamo Bay -
i never mentioned those parts of new mexico and arizona…. :-D but texas and california chose to come here after they were their own country. and the purchase was small, and yes we did take parts of new mexico and arizona. but the mexicans were just taking that from the indians anyways.
to the primaries…who’s McCain going to run against. obama or hillary.
second, what are some good VP nominees for both parties?
-
Hillary has too many opponents in her own party. There are Democrats that honestly hate Hillary. Obama has no such animosity. He has people who disagree with him, but no outright hatred, mostly because he hasn’t been around long enough to screw things up.
-
Mitt Romney is going to run against Obama. Mitt has the most delegates and Obama has the most delegates. McCain is a fluke, he won’t carry enough delegates to get into the general election.
Anyway, he IS a liberal. He SAYS he is pro-life, but every vote has been pro-abortion. He is pro-sunsetting the tax cuts and pro-tax hikes, based on his voting. He supports the Fairness Doctrine (which is basically a gag order on conservative radio, but no effect on liberal television.) He is pro-Iraq, but so is Hillary, she always has been.
Take a look at just about any vote in the Senate. If McCain voted Yes, so did Hillary. iF Mccain voted no, so did Hillary. And McCain’s spent more time in Ted Kennedy’s office then any other Republican Office yet.
Sure, he wears the red name tag, he is counted as a republican during the roll calls, but he isn’t. Not really. He is only in name.
So far, for Illinois, the forecasts for the Republicans out of 185 possible delegates (that’s almost the most of any state, California has 441 and New York 281) have:
Huckabee: 1 Delegate
McCain: 62 Delegates
Romney: 102 DelegatesToo Close Too Call: 20 Delegates
There are 70 Delegates possible for the Democrat Side (I assume this is calculated somehow, dunno why Republicans have 185 and Democrats only 70, but who cares.)
Hillary: 33 Delegates
Obama: 33 Delegates
Edwards: 4 DelegatesNo too close too call races for them.
Suggested Topics
